Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: kcarrera and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Bruce Boudreau on potential NHL rule changes

After spending two days in Toronto this week for the NHL's research and development camp, Capitals Coach Bruce Boudreau said he has been mulling over the way several potential rule changes demonstrated could "really change some of the strategies for a coach."

Many of the changes on display at the camp were aimed at increasing offense, as the league has been wont to do since the lockout. Considering the Capitals' high-octane style, Boudreau initially thought a change like not allowing short-handed teams to ice the puck would clearly benefit Washington.

But in addition to creating more scoring chances, an adjustment like preventing a short-handed team from icing the puck could significantly alter both teams' special teams strategies.

"It changes the way you look at penalty killing ... Do you now put skilled guys out there to have hands to make plays and get it out of the zone rather than the usual shot-blocking, character guys?" Boudreau said. "My initial reaction was [that] this would be great for our power play but would it hurt the power play because the short-handed team will be trying to create more chances themselves rather than just clear the puck out? Maybe you put two defensemen out there on a power play, then. It could really change some of the strategies for a coach."

Boudreau thought several of the proposed tweaks could add offense without changing the overall look of the game much, like moving the net out four inches and creating more play-making space behind the goal line, larger blue lines to extend the offensive zone and an alteration of delayed penalty calls.

The latter requires the penalized team to clear the puck from their zone rather than just gain possession to prompt the referee to blow a whistle.

"That definitely makes things interesting and it takes away from referees having to make a judgment call of what control is,"Boudreau said. "Sometimes it hits a goalie's pads and then they blow the whistle, and other times that happens and they don't. I don't know if they have to carry it out or just ice the puck, but I'm sure that would be clarified."

One of the most discussed changes at the camp was the hybrid icing rule, which gives linesmen the option to blow the whistle and determine an icing call based on which player reaches the faceoff dot first, rather than who touches the puck. Boudreau initially didn't like the idea, thinking there were too many options for a linesman to consider so quickly, but watching the rule in action for two days changed his mind.

"The more I thought about the hybrid icing concept, the more sense it made," Boudreau said. "I think alleviates a lot of the potential injury concerns -- somebody's still going to get hurt somehow -- but if the linesmen are on the ball it should be an easy call. It would save time while still allowing for the races and safety at the same time."

There were a few suggested changes that Boudreau didn't like, or that he didn't believe would alleviate the problems that exist with the way the game is now. He's opposed to a setup with only three "Cyclops" faceoff circles that he believed made the game look like a "lacrosse rink" and having an official stationed off the ice: "As a coach, it'd be hard to talk to him when he makes a decision. He's behind the play and sees everything, but isn't that what the back ref does already?"

The designated line change areas, which were shaded in blue, would still result in the arguments and cheating of where players were during line changes and the inability to change lines after an icing likely wouldn't alter much either, Boudreau said.

"Coaches will figure out how to defend against the no line change after an offsides, they already do it with icing," Boudreau said. "Unless every offsides faceoff goes back into that team's defensive zone it probably wouldn't change much."

Although he found the opportunity to pick an opponent for a faceoff if the initial player is kicked out intriguing, Boudreau thought NHL players would continue to find ways to cheat the system should the league move to a whistle-prompted faceoff rather than the traditional puck drop.

Then there's the hypothetical overtime adjustments, which were tried as three minutes of 4 on 4, then three minutes of 3 on 3, three minutes of 2 on 2 and a shootout with five players per team.

"I like the 4 on 4, the 3 on 3 was interesting and should be able to end anything and no game should ever go to a shootout with that," Boudreau said. "But 2 on 2 is just ridiculous, to me that's less hockey than a shootout. I didn't like the idea that the same shooters could shoot again either, it's more exciting that you have to use different guys and say having a Matt Bradley scoring in the 13th round rather than the same three guys over and over."

Now that you've heard Boudreau's take, what did you think of some of the proposed rules? Anything you'd like to see in the next few years?

By Katie Carrera  |  August 20, 2010; 3:27 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fan blog FAQ
Next: Single-game tickets on sale Sept. 10

Comments

The game isn't broke so don't fix it. LEAVE THE GAME ALONE!!!

Posted by: PhilR | August 20, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I pretty much agree with Bruce. 2-on-2 is silly. I think 3-on-3 for 10 minutes followed by a shootout. The game should be decided in those 10 minutes. I think no icing when your on the PK would serious hurt the Caps more than it would help us. I love the little changes with the net and the width of the lines. The icing rule makes sense but it seems not all that practical, because the defense will already be very close to the puck and if the offense is close at all, they won't blow the whistle and we'll have the same injuries.

Don't move the face off dots. That's ridiculous.

Here are two things that ACTUALLY need fixing: Intent to blow the whistle is nonsense. When those situations arise, the whistle is usually always in the ref's mouth already. How many seconds does it take to exhale into a whistle that's already in place? Goalie interference needs to be STANDARD. The Caps lost game 7 because of a bad goalie interference call TWICE (against Montreal this year and Philly two years ago!).

Oh and do we have an in-game head shot rule yet? It still seems to depend on who you are and who you hit.

Posted by: gocaps99 | August 20, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

no icing on PK - no thanks. puts too much pressure on the PK and can make penalties too big a factor in the game.

cyclops face off dots - no. just allow for faceoffs to occur closest to where the puck was played instead of on the dots

player change area - yes. with all the too many men penalties last year, there needs to be some consistency of calls. the rules say you can change when the player is 5' from the bench, so put down a dotted line or shaded box to define the area and call it consitently.

hybrid ice. sure.

pick your own face off guy. stupid. linesmen are too subjective in their tossouts.

have to clear the zone on a delayed penalty. meh. again may provide too much of an advantage to the team who is going on the pp. what if the penalty happens in the neutral or offensive zone?

Posted by: dcsportsfan1 | August 20, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Stop trying to "fix" the game. It's great the way it is.
Someone finally get Bettman out of there.

Posted by: gk17 | August 20, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The contact on icings is part of the game and the players come in knowing that injury is a risk and are handsomely compensated for their trade. Please do not turn this sport into another form of ice dancing, can you imagine Erskine or Ovechkin skating around in tu-tu(sp?)...it seems they are trying to take more and more hitting out of the game.....not a good thing! Don't turn the spory I grew up loving for its physicality turn into a pansy sport with no contact....PLEASE!

Posted by: PhilR | August 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Losing teams should not get a point.
No more staged fighting.


Posted by: richmondphil2 | August 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It's "the league has been wont to do".

Posted by: Cosmo06 | August 20, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

2-on-2 is idiotic and Boudreau's right that it's not hockey. I dislike the shootout intensely but I can concede that penalty shots are a part of the game. 2-on-2 hockey is not. The rulebook explicitly states that a team is entitled to have three skaters (plus the goalie) on the ice at all times, and if a penalty would cause a team to have only two skaters, the penalty doesn't begin to run until such time as a previous penalty expires. There's no reason to change the rule for overtime. 2-on-2 lends itself too much to fluke goals or to the team with the faster skaters or better passers being able to win every time.

Posted by: 1995hoo | August 20, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Also, Souray better not be wearing a Caps jersey anytime soon. Or ever. Bieksa is fine.

Posted by: richmondphil2 | August 20, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Don't be hatin' on Matt Bradley!

Posted by: dcunitedfan3 | August 20, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

On the flip side, some of those proposed rule changes mentioned in this article would also make things even harder on our already mediocre-at-best defense.

Of course, Boudreau is just focusing on the offensive side of things.

Posted by: tmac2yao | August 20, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

@richmondphil2
As long as there’s a shootout I think the losing team should get a point.

Posted by: guer_j | August 20, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Instead of moving the goal up four inches why don't they just make the goal thinner?

There really is no reason to have a deep goal except for the aesthetics. That could add a few extra inches of room behind the goal without losing room in front of it.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 20, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

> Instead of moving the goal up four inches why don't they just make the goal thinner?

That is what was tested at the RD&O camp - a 40 inch deep goal instead of 44.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=536011

Posted by: yosemite_sam | August 20, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

1) Teams will still ice the puck when on the PK. Worst that can happen is they bring it down for a faceoff.
2) I like the icing whistle proposal where linesman withholds whistle if it's a close race.
3) 4-on-4 for five mins, then 3-on-3 for five mins, then shootout if nec.
3A) 3 pts for regulation win; 2 pts for OT/shootout win; 1 pt for OT/shootout loss, zero pts for reg loss. Let's cut out the thing where some games are 3 pts and others are 2 and let's encourage teams to "go for the three-pointer."
4) I don't like moving net, thicker blue line, etc. Two things to do instead: a) make the goalies wear traditional, thinner, pads; b) stop allowing the goalies to freeze the puck.

One thing allowed in hockey that's unique I'd say is the goalie can just cover the puck and kill the action. Why? Really, I mean, why? Your team is being outplayed. Rather than keep the action going and maybe the dominating team scores, the goalie covers the puck and gets a whistle. Why? Make them keep playing. All this rule as it is now does is allow the weaker team, like a weaker boxer tying up his opponent, a breather. The goalie covers; ref blows whistle; teams change players; and the flow of the game is changed.

This would be like in football where a team is driving and the other team just grabs the ball, runs into its own endzone, and punts.

I would allow the goalie to stop play for a puck caught in the air, or if the puck goes under the goalie, but would not allow him to reach out and freeze. Make the goalie play the puck! This would help the offense really more than anything else they could do by extending offensive zone action. Strong, offensive teams like the Caps would be huge beneficiaries.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Read my lips. Leave the game alone after they fix what they already screwed up.

Cordially,
RBlatch

Posted by: rblatch45 | August 20, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

pretty much every suggestion there is stupid. don't change it.

Posted by: j762 | August 20, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

sgm: You have a very interesting point.

Why even have the net in the goal at all?

Theoretically, you just need the posts and the crossbar. I fully understand back in the day that, by having the net, it made it apparent when a goal was scored. However, the rule states that the puck must "cross the plane." There is no requirement for the net to be there. Or maybe make it 24 inch deep and in a rectangular shape. Would make for many more wraparounds! (I suppose you must have SOME net, if only to keep rebounds from bouncing back thru the goal.)

Anyway, with instant replay firmly in place, no matter what they do, they can tell if it's a goal or not with the replay.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Doing things like not allowing the goaltender to freeze the puck is changing the game completely. Look, the CFL lets the offense move towards the line of scrimmage before the snap, does it make it wrong? No, but it does make it different and would change our American style of football so we don't want it. If some hybrid hockey comes about they can make the rule about not freezing the puck. Some rule changes make sense like lifting the icing touch up for legit reasons like potential injuries. However, changing the same for sake of changing it, doesn't really make much sense. If you want a game with a whole new set of rules go to a baseketball game or something.

Posted by: fanohock1 | August 20, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Had the no icing on th pk rule been in effect for the past 3 seasons it wouldn't have changed anything for this team seeing that they usually can't be bothered to clear the zone anyway.

Posted by: LesGrossman | August 20, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

@tominsocal1

I agree, having a 24 inch goal depth is more than enough. You do need some of net to prevent the puck going through the other ways and for fans to know when a goal is scored.

But a 24 inch rectangular goal with rounded edges(for safety) makes sense. It would create a lot more wrap around attempts forcing the goalie to be much more aware of the player behind the net being a more serious scoring threat. It also creates room to make more passes(cutting down the size of the net creates more available passing angles)

Posted by: sgm3 | August 20, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

all these possible rule changes are nothing but gimmicks... if they want more goals, all they gotta do is reduce the size of goalie equipments.

Posted by: joek443 | August 20, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Read my lips. Leave the game alone after they fix what they already screwed up.

Cordially,
RBlatch

Posted by: rblatch45
--------------------
My name is FrankM73 and I unequivocally endorse the above post!


seriously, 3 points for a win, NO!

Posted by: FrankM73 | August 20, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

But Fraaaaank, all the new hockey fans that are soccer fans want to have the 3 point rule instituted. That way it conforms to what they're used to.

I have loved this sport since it was introduced to me as a youngster back in the early 1970s. Yes, there have been some changes to the game, but fundamentally it hasn't changed at all. Not sure why some want to basically change the NHL when it is more popular than it has ever been in the history of the league.

Posted by: fanohock1 | August 20, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Leave the frikkin game alone. Remove the instigator penalty, get back to the roots of the game and stop trying to please everyone! When you try to please everyone you end up pissing off hard core fans that have kept the league alive and pleasing nobody. Gary B needs to take his useless @ss back to the NBA.

Posted by: FLDave | August 20, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Aaron Asham signs with Pitt. 1yr for 700k

Posted by: pokerfaceI208 | August 20, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

All of these rule changes would make hockey unwatchable. No icing the puck on the PK??!!?? That gives an incredibly unfair advantage to the team on the power play. It almost makes penalties the most important aspect of any game. We don't like it when referees directly influence the game. Changing PP rules would do this. Leave the rules alone (except for touch-icing, possibly), the NHL had a great year. No need to fix what ain't broke.

Posted by: ASchumacher | August 20, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

If the net is made too thin there will be a serious instability problem. The net will be knocked on top of the goalie more, increasing the risk for injury. They can make it heavier in the back to circumvent this. However, the net will then be harder to knock off the pegs, increasing the risk for the net crashers. I say make the icing line the opposite blueline instead of

I

Posted by: Dizruption | August 20, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Make the icing line the opposite blue line instead of center ice.

Posted by: Dizruption | August 20, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

But Fraaaaank, all the new hockey fans that are soccer fans want to have the 3 point rule instituted. That way it conforms to what they're used to.

Posted by: fanohock1 | August 20, 2010 6:02 PM

fanohock: I have been watching since Detroit in 1964 and never watch soccer.

My point: If you are going to award three pts in some games, it should be in all games. Either 2 or 3 per game.

And I agree w/joek443 on this one. My first proposed change to increase scoring if that's what they want is reduce the goalie pads back to where they were. So there - it's not a "change" but a "return to what was."

And I still think freezing the puck when your team is being outplayed is "cheating."

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

And I agree w/joek443

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 7:32 PM

it's only 4:30 out here - just how much have you had to drink today :)

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | August 20, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

If they are going to change anything about icing regarding injuries, I vote for the icing call to be made when the puck crosses the goal line. Wait - I think that is the rule in other play in at least one instance outside the NHL.

Posted by: ebolean1 | August 20, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I also like the larger ice surface. Unfortunately, the capital (no pun intended) investment involved in increasing the ice surface (refrigeration etcl) is probably an obstacle to that. Anybody else remember when the Bruins' rink was smaller than everybody elses?

Posted by: ebolean1 | August 20, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

And I agree w/joek443

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 7:32 PM

it's only 4:30 out here - just how much have you had to drink today :)

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | August 20, 2010 7:35 PM

Not a drop. I've been weeding in the yard!

ebolean: I think both Boston Gardens and the old Chicago Stadium were both a little smaller than normal. Boston Gardens didn't have air conditioning either and once there the Finals against Edmonton had to be postponed, or maybe moved to Edm, due to the players couldn't see for the fog. That was the year, 1990, that Boston swept the Caps in the ECF only to get swept by the now Messier-led Oilers. Geez, that was also the limo year after which the darkest day in Caps history occurred (losing Scott Stevens).

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

TEN DARKEST DAYS IN CAPS HISTORY
1) Losing Scott Stevens to free agency. Cost us IMO 2-3 Cups.
2) The Dale Hunter "incident" and losing to NYI in 93
3) Losing last year to Montreal
4) Losing to NYI on Lafontaine's 4OT goal
5) and 6) 1992 and 1995 - lost to Pens after being up 3-1 in games
7) 2009 - losing 4-3 at home to Crosby-led Pens
8) Lemieux gets tossed in playoff OT, Juneau misses penalty shot (first ever SC penalty shot in OT I think) and Jagr scores the winner.
9) Trading Ciccarelli for Kevin Miller.
10) the last game in the first season when the team ended up like 8-67-5.

Anybody got any better (worse) ones?

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

shame on me for not remembering chicago's smaller rink too - grew up in Illinois - always loved Stan Mikita. Too bad we can't climb in a time machine, capture him at his peak, bring him back, and put him in a Caps uniform today

Posted by: ebolean1 | August 20, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Capt Kirk: Just popped the top on the first of what promises to be a few Sam Adams Boston Lagers (and, no, I won't drink just two and then fall asleep like cstanton).

After working in the yard, in the 100 degree heat (but it WAS a dry heat), beer is better with hamburgers than wine.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

@tominsocal1

I would move the Dino one higher but part of that is because he was my favorite growing up and is the reason I started following Detroit.

I also don't think last year should be so high. Yes we had a great regular season but for some reason it just doesn't have the feeling of something that will last a long time.

I would say game two of the 1998 SCF where Detroit was starting their big comeback and then Esa Tikkanen had an empty net and missed and Detroit came back and won the game and we still haven't won a finals game.

Posted by: icehammer97 | August 20, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

I liked the second goal line they tried to help with over the line calls where the puck is on edge. All it was is a small yellow line the length of the puck away from the back of the goal line that if the puck touches it means the puck has crossed the goal line. It should help make those puck on edge calls easier to see on the replays.

I also liked the smaller nets. It reminded me of when they added space behind the goal line a while back just without actually changing the rink.

I am also all for 3 on 3. Anything to make less shootouts. I would also like to see them get rid of the extra point for a SO loss. That way teams would rather lose in OT then in a SO and it would make them more aggressive.

Posted by: icehammer97 | August 20, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

tominsocal1:
A few others...
-The hiring of Bruce Cassidy.
-Tikanens missed goal.
Also I'd move the Lafontaine 4OT goal up to #1. I've never heard anything suck the life out of a building like that.

Posted by: kcbrichmond | August 20, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

TEN DARKEST DAYS IN CAPS HISTORY
1) Losing Scott Stevens to free agency. Cost us IMO 2-3 Cups.
2) The Dale Hunter "incident" and losing to NYI in 93
3) Losing to NYI on Lafontaine's 4OT goal
4) and 5) 1992 and 1995 - lost to Pens after being up 3-1 in games
6) Losing last year to Montreal
7) 2009 - losing 4-3 at home to Crosby-led Pens
8) Tikkanen misses empty net and Caps lose Game 2 to Detroit in 1998 en route to being swept in SC Finals.
9) Trading Ciccarelli for Kevin Miller.
10) the last game in the first season when the team ended up like 8-67-5.

OK, there. I actually omitted the 98 Finals on purpose the first time around, due to it was an overachieved season. But, on reflection, Caps played very well that game, Oates got a shorty, and Jeff Brown got three assists I think before getting injured and missing the last two games. Brown was actually a good acquisition if anyone remembers. Very good offensive defenseman.

And I will still put the Dale Hunter thing ahead of the Lafontaine goal, because the Hunter thing wasn't just a hockey game loss but something that carried over to 21 game suspension the following year, and then he got hurt right away (was hooked down by a NYR and got a hip-pointer I think) and missed another 10-12 games.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

as i recall, icing is entirely up to the discretion of the ref. they can not call it in order to keep the pace of a game going, and they can not call it when it's a close race. perhaps refs simply need be reminded of this, as opposed to changing the rules.

Posted by: j762 | August 20, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Well since Tom did his list of the worst days in Caps history I figured I would take a look at the other side the best days. Feel free to let me know what I messed up.

1)Abe Pollin gets a NHL franchise. This one is simple without this day there are no Caps.
2)The Langway trade. It made us competitive for many years and he is still our best d-man ever and without him there may no longer be a Caps
3)Joe Juneau’s OT winning in game 6 of the ECF sending us to the Stanley Cup Final
4)2004 draft. No only because of Ovechkin but also Schultz, Green, Lepisto, and Andrew Gordon who all could be full time in the NHL this year.
5)1988 Patrick Division Semi-Final Dale Hunter beats last years Conn Smythe winner Ron Hextall in OT finishing off the 3-1 series comeback.
6)1990. Dino Ciccarelli lights up NJ before getting hurt and John Druce gets 14 goals in 15 games and the Caps go to the ECF. Then in the draft after the season we draft Olie Kolzig
7)1993-1994 Eastern Conference Quarter-Finals. How is a first round series one here? Well it is the only time we have won a playoff series against the Pens.
8)The 2008 Stretch run. The beginning of DC becoming a hockey town and one of the best playoff runs in NHL history winning 11 of the last 12.
9) President’s trophy of this season. I know the post season didn’t go well but in the regular season the Caps were the best team in the NHL.
10) MCI Center opens. Finally getting the Washington Capitals in Washington.

Posted by: icehammer97 | August 20, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

icehammer: That's a really good list except I think Kolzig (and Dafoe) were picked in 89.

I went to all the (home) games in the 93-94 series win over Pitt. Was of course before moving to Florida.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 20, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Tom you are right. Stupid Wikipedia fooled me by putting it with the 1989-1990 season stuff. I guess I could call it the 89-90 season and count the draft as part of that season since I see it as the start of the next season since players drafted aren't used in the previous season only then next one.

Posted by: icehammer97 | August 20, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

@tominsocal1

I thought it was Nedved who had the 4OT goal in '96, not Jagr. I could be wrong but for some reason in my head I see Nedved shooting that seeing eye shot into the top corner. I really hated that goal. Spend so much time watching that game to have it end up like that.

On the Dale Hunter incident, it was a terrible moment but it was different than the others because it was more shameful than anything.

As great of a player Hunter was that was about as dirty of a play imagineable. The game was over, the series was over, there was absolutely no excuse for it. It was a shameful play and is a perfect example of horrible sportsmanship.

Just imagine if a Matt Cooke did that to Ovechkin under similar circumstances.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 21, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Even Bruce...
#needsmorebradley

Posted by: dgreene78 | August 21, 2010 1:39 AM | Report abuse

It was nedved. I was there. It sucked.

Posted by: Dizruption | August 21, 2010 2:23 AM | Report abuse

bet bruce wet his pants in a good way when he heard about rules designed to inject even more offense into this game.

The game isn't broke so don't fix it. LEAVE THE GAME ALONE!!!

Posted by: PhilR | August 20, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

too late. The newbies and the bettmanites have a full head of steam. This game will be unrecognizable in 10 yrs. They're sucking the marrow out of this game.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 21, 2010 2:34 AM | Report abuse

My thoughts on some of these new rules:

1) Icing on a PK is absurd. One of the most exciting things as a fan is that nail-biting during a PK and it can often turn the tides of a game when a team clears it out and the building roars as the PP has to go fetch. Taking away that momentum swing and mental boost from the defending team would be a huge mistake that would just make the game boring.

2) No change after offsides is just weird. Maybe if it's an intentional offsides I buy it, but 90% of offsides calls are just a player slipping up or not dragging his foot. It's not like icing where you're doing it because you're tired.

3) Please don't add a 5 foot zone around the benches. I have a hard enough time explaining to new fans all the CURRENT lines, zones, and rules in the game and adding another random one around the benches isn't going to make that easier.

4) Hybrid icing I can deal with. I've never had a problem with no touch icing really, but maybe that's just me.

5) More space behind the nets/in the offensive zone I can deal with, though I honestly don't think it'll produce more scoring as the league hopes it will.

6) Having to clear the puck on a delayed penalty doesn't bother me too much. I can't count the number of times I've yelled "THAT'S NOT CONTROL" when a team gets a lucky whistle. To me it's on the same level as "taking a penalty = face off in your zone" and I've learned to live with that.

7) Move the face-off dots? Are you serious? Who is coming up with these ideas?!?

8) 3 on 3 OT is more appealing to me than a shootout. If they're playing 2 on 2 they're going to just alienate both groups of fans. 2 on 2 is going to make hockey purists sick and new fans confused because the game moves too quickly. Though at least the shootout is easy to explain.

9) Off ice official isn't so bad - especially because some of the older refs just tend to get in the way these days. It would totally look ridiculous though.

10) While I think not letting a goalie freeze the puck interesting (as per tominsocal) I really like the strategic decision element it adds to playing goalie. Knowing when to move the puck and when to freeze it is kind of a fun decision.

As a side note, if you always have to move the puck you're going to see so many stupid goals that will make your eyes bleed and those goals will decide games on occasion. Not a huge fan of that.

11) Instigator rule is dumb. Staged fighting is also dumb. Neither is leaving the game so we all just have to deal with it.

The season feels too far away...

Posted by: Raber | August 21, 2010 4:07 AM | Report abuse

Raber, I agree with you, point by point.

Can't wait till the Caps start practicing at Kettler so I can get a look at these guys again.

Posted by: dccitizen1 | August 21, 2010 6:51 AM | Report abuse

It was Nedved who scored the '96 4OT goal-- long wrister from the left point and a screened goalie--can't remember whether it was Ace or Olie...I was there too...Mario was tossed for some stuff with Krygier, as I recall...what about the limo incident after the team party in '90...all of the guys who were involved (Dino, Scotty, Sheehy, Courtnall, Kypreos)ended up leaving shortly...Abe wasn't happy.

Posted by: NorthFork1 | August 21, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

How about this for a rule change: The commissioner of the National Hockey League must have an actual understanding of hockey, and preferably have a background rooted in the game. He/she can't be lawyer from the NBA.

I'm sick of Bettman and his buddies, and I'm sick of these gimmick rules. They do nothing to attract new fans, and rarely do they improve the game in any way.

The game wasn't meant to be played 3 on 3, or 2 on 2. There's no other sport that even proposes these types of rules. What would happen to baseball if they took one fielder off the field for every inning they play in extra innings?

I'm ok with the hybrid icing because of the potential injury factor. If you want to add more offense, reduce the size of goalie equipment. Make the goalies actually play the position. If you want to reduce the cheap shots, elimate the instigator.

Posted by: Fletch22 | August 21, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

How about this for a rule change: The commissioner of the National Hockey League must have an actual understanding of hockey, and preferably have a background rooted in the game. He/she can't be lawyer from the NBA.

I'm sick of Bettman and his buddies, and I'm sick of these gimmick rules. They do nothing to attract new fans, and rarely do they improve the game in any way.

The game wasn't meant to be played 3 on 3, or 2 on 2. There's no other sport that even proposes these types of rules. What would happen to baseball if they took one fielder off the field for every inning they play in extra innings?

I'm ok with the hybrid icing because of the potential injury factor. If you want to add more offense, reduce the size of goalie equipment. Make the goalies actually play the position. If you want to reduce the cheap shots, elimate the instigator.

Other than that, leave the game alone.

Posted by: Fletch22 | August 21, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Double post. Sorry.

Posted by: Fletch22 | August 21, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Aaron Asham signs with Pitt. 1yr for 700k
------------------------------------------

he could have been a nice 4th line addition but then again why should we be surprised that he signed with Pitt?

Posted by: joek443 | August 21, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Funny. After seeing Boudreau's "coaching" in the playoffs, I didn't think he paid attention to things like strategy.

Posted by: poguesmahone | August 21, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Agree on Asham.

joek443/cstanton/or anybody:

Who better value, DJ King at 637 or Asham at 700?

I would think Asham.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 21, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I don't think they need to keep changing the game to increase scoring. I don't mind a couple of the rules like hybrid icing (I'd rather have no-touch but it's a start) and needing to clear the puck from your zone on a delayed penalty, but there's enough scoring in the game that you don't need to keep tweaking it. It seems like the NHL forgets that there are these players called defencemen and goalies, who are professionals at stopping other teams from scoring. And they are good at it. Don't see the point in changing the overtime rules either. It's already so short and followed by a shootout, doesn't make sense to change it. If you want more scoring in it, bring back ties, get rid of the shootout so the only option to get full points is scoring in OT. With the shootout teams will sometimes sit back and take their chances in the shootout. From a points perspective I'd rather see that anyway, a shootout shouldn't be worth as much as a regulation win. I like the idea of 3 points for a regulation win.

Posted by: Stu_c | August 21, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

@Stu

What I would like to see is the current OT set up but in a shootout it is 2 points for a win and nothing for a loss. Teams would have to think it is better to risk it in OT and go for the two there since if they lose they still get a point but if they sit back and wait for the SO they get nothing if they happen to lose.

Posted by: icehammer97 | August 21, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Fletch22- Agree with almost everything except the double post. Bettman has no business running the NHL. I understand his desire to want to increase revenues and TV ratings but to do so with constant rule changes rather than figuring out a way to market the wonderful game of Hockey for what it is, is just a travesty.

tominsocal1- Good list, if it was a top 20 list I would maybe ad losing the Poile Report during televised games(not because it was informative, it wasn't, but because it was entertaining). By the end of it's run around '96 I think, callers had given up on trying to get any real answers from Poile and were just trying to see what rude things they could get on the air. What can I say, I'm immature that way. I would also ad giving out pom poms to fans during the '98 playoffs, this was just embarrassing.

icehammer97- Good list as well. Pollin always frustrated me in that he seemed more committed to the Bullets/Wizards than the Caps, but there's no doubt we would not still have a team without him.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | August 21, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

@icehammer

That isn't a bad idea. The only negative is that when games go to a shootout it puts too much importance on it (deciding two points instead of one).

I like the idea of a 3 point game (3 points for a regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss, 0 for regulation loss).

Every game should be worth an equal amount.

In the current system, it would actually make sense that whenever a Western Conference team played an Eastern Conference team that they agreed to go to OT so each team would get at least one point and then they play the 5 minutes of OT and shootout to see who gets the extra point.

Since the teams aren't competing with each other for the playoffs it would make sense for both sides to guarantee one point in every game.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 21, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

@icehammer

Abe Pollin is a love\hate thing. Happy he brought hockey here, but would not spend when the team turned the corner. We had Langway and Stevens back there, and needed free agent help for more scoring. We should have won a Cup already. Pollin is an overall negative. Hockey would have come to this huge market soon anyway. What guy fires a decent man like Brian Murray and then replaces him with his brother. Weird, really weird !!!!!!!!!!!

@tominallbrownhillscali

King is feared. He's a true heavy weight, who destroyed Boogaard's "next Probert status". He is just what guys like Downy, Matt Cooke, (and cheap shot Asham) need to see on our bench. Asham doesn't scare anybody. That's why the Flyers went and got Jody.

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | August 21, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Hunterforcoach: Thanks for that very good input. My thinking on Asham was you get more offense. But, we have plenty of O. What we really need then is a #2C with some Rick Tocchet in him and a #1D infused with the spirit of Mark Tinordi.

Put those two players on our team and we jump to the head of the class.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 21, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the kudos guys. The first one was mainly about the starting of the Caps and not about Abe being the owner. In fact I considered adding Ted becoming the owner but didn't want to take any of the ones on there off.

Posted by: icehammer97 | August 21, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

King is feared. He's a true heavy weight, who destroyed Boogaard's "next Probert status". He is just what guys like Downy, Matt Cooke, (and cheap shot Asham) need to see on our bench. Asham doesn't scare anybody. That's why the Flyers went and got Jody.

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | August 21, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

this is such bogus machismo bravado commentary I don't even know where to start. Lets see, Asham reduced to nothing more than a "cheap short" artist. Jesus can you be any more simplistic in your player evaluations? Arron Asham is a quality grinder, period. The bonus is he can also throw down like a quality middleweight. EVERY player (your name is Hunter4coach???) who plays aggressively will at one point or another be accused of taking things a bit far, its the nature of the biz.


And the Flyers didn't replace Asham with Shelley. Asham's job would never be to go after another team's heavyweight. That's not his role. He'll fight whoever because he's a solid team player but his primary role has nothing to do with lining up and fighting another team's goon. And if you think Cooke, Downey, and Asham will change their game because the Caps got DJK, you're dreaming. Those 3 have nothing to fear from King because King can't do anything more than finish a check on those guys. Do you really think Matt Cooke will drop the gloves with a heavy? Or Downie? So unless you want King sitting in the pen box with an instigator, major, game misc and giving the other team a 7 min PP, I suggest you reevaluate. Guys like Cooke don't need to fight King. So unless he jumps em and gets kicked out or suspended, he's relegated to nothing more than maybe trying to finish a hard check on them. That's the only msg he can realistically send to players who won't fight him.

Toughness doesn't start on your 4th line. It starts with more of your regular players and the 4th line is basically a backup when things get crazy out there. King's main value to the Caps is in essence being the guy to fight other team's heavies so Bradley doesn't lose another pint of blood. He's not going to discourage the Cookes and Downies of this world. Asham's a different sort than those 2 and he may fight King and lose, or he may fight Bradley and win big. He doesn't need to fight King and he'd be stupid to considering he's a better player and the Pens can use another (heavier) fighter like Godard or Engelland to match up with King. Asham can focus on just finishing hard checks and maybe roughing it up with a middleweight like Bradley or Erskine.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 21, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse


asham in a perfect world would be a great acquisition for the Caps. He's a better grinder than the guys we have in that role and he's definitely tougher than anyone on our team except for King. But unfortunately, our 3rd and 4th lines are already clogged up so there's no room for him. But if our GM had some creativity and could have found a way to replace some of our bummier players with an AA, that would've been an upgrade in team toughness and chemistry. He's just a very hardnosed quality grinder who can play on a 4th line and adjust his style accordingly and then get moved up a line and fit right in. The Flyers relied on him heavily in the playoffs.
If Matt Bradley was tougher, he'd be Asham. And we all like Brads don't we?

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 21, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Who better value, DJ King at 637 or Asham at 700?

I would think Asham.
--------

easily Asham. Not even close. You can pick up a good young fighter/bruiser for half a mil. Asham is much more than that.

The question really is, how effective will King be this yr? Meaning, health, ice time, opportunities, etc. If he turns into a 10-12 shift per game player and he's consistently banging bodies, causing havoc, and doing some enforcing then we're getting very good value. If he's a 2 or 3 shift per gamer, sits out a few games, gets hurt or whatever, he's a waste. Based on track record, Asham's salary is a bargain compared to King's because he's simply a better player who can also throw down. He doesn't need to be in DJK's calibre of fighting ability to prove his worth on the ice.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 21, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

cstanton: Thanks also for your opinion on Asham vs King. Bottom line, reading all ther eviews, I like having King because, apparently, he's one of the best in the business.

Anyone who reads anything I write (not that I own a monopoly on anything except verbosity) would understand I have a belief that championship teams are composed of a set of players, all of whom excel at SOME aspect of whatever game they play.

I look at the Caps roster and, given the cost (and therefore relative worth) of each player, I ask the question: Can a team contend heavily for a Cup with this guy on the roster, in his role, at his price?

Let's look at the forwards:

Ovechkin 9.5 absolutely
Backstrom 6.7 yes, given top 5 in scoring and blossoming defense
Knuble 2.8 I would think so
Flash 2.6 not unless he has a come to Jesus meeting. He has the talent, not much else. His penalties caused vs penalties taken is bad, and his +/- is worse than teammates. I say: Cut the cord.
Semin 6.0 - yes, if he plays 28 games to his ability. What are the chances? I have however seen him be the best player on the ice, sometimes for several games running. You can't just grow that on trees. OTOH, often he's just Flash with a little more talent.
Laich 2.1 - yes, but really he needs to turn it up when it counts for now and whatever he makes in the future. His playoff performance last year was below average, not nearly what he showed us in the playoffs vs the Flyers when he earned his current contract. Like Semin, though, we know he can do it. So, just...do it.
Fehr 2.2 - absolutely, I have full confidence he will score 300 over the next ten years and provide an ever-tougher presence around the net. He has skill. Love that wrister. And why do I like Fehr better than Flash? Fehr just has the look of someone who will win. Like Johnny Carlson.
Bradley 1.0 - a case can be made for him. Plus, he's really likeable. I was at the game last year in Tampa when he came to Ovi's defense. A solid teammate.
Steckel 1.1 - not unless he improves
Chimera 1.875 - not in my book
King .637 - yes, apparently he excels at enforcement
AGordon, Beagle, Pinner 500K each - one would think anyone of them could fill a 4th line role at that price, on a Cup winner, especially if they all play the PK. Does Beagle play PK? I know the other two do.
BGordon 800K - I say that's a decent price for what he brings. Who's to quibble with 800K vs 500K.
Perreault 717 - at this point, my opinion, he doesn't do anything quite well enough, like Aucoin, to make a difference.

I could tackle the blueliners, but the whole group is really "Incomplete" at the moment as far as "leading us to Cup." We don't know. One would expect Green and Carlson, yes, others we aren't sure at their prices.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 21, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

@tominsocal1

Great analysis of the forwards and their worth.

Posted by: CapsFan75 | August 22, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

tom:
was that an audition blog? you'd get my vote

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | August 22, 2010 1:03 AM | Report abuse

CF75/CK: No, that was just me being me...as you know.

Truth be told, I am a decent writer. Back in school when we were tested for these things, I actually got the same score in writing comprehension as math comprehension. (If only I weren't lazy, I mighta been somebody, a contender, but instead I'm just a no-body, a bum.)

I have written six novels, almost got one published (it was science fiction, Captain). At work, I always defeat them with numbers, with charts, with long paragraphs detailing my back-up data. Then, when they gang up and call me, them in a group and me by myself, I concede where I must and stand my ground where appropriate.

I have defeated them on the beaches; I have defeated them in the hedgerows; I have defeated them in the skies; I never surrender, just retreat tactically as sometimes in life we must.

As far as this blog is concerned, I would not do that. (If nominated, I will not run; and if elected, I will not serve.) I already have a job. What I do here is for fun. Make it a job, it's no longer fun. It's like when I go hiking (fun) and I encounter people force marching for time and I think, as they race by, them covered in dark-stained clothing, "It ain't worth it if you don't take your time to enjoy it."

That said, Capt, compliments are ALWAYS very much appreciated. And, if I can somehow get to the Phoenix game this year, although I think it's mid-week Valentine's Day, I'll buy you a cold one.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 22, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

@cstanton

We're talking about a huge intangible here. What guys used to say in the 80's when the Wings had Probert and Kocur was you never wanted to piss them off. That's anyone on the team. "You were always aware those guys were 30 feet away."(Manson) I know Cooke will never go with King, but one of Cooke's teammates may be forced into it. Who the heck on Pitt wants to go with King, or put up with his pounding forcheck because he's ticked at Cooke. Remember Cooke had to fight Thornton this year or the entire Pens team was gonna' have to put up with Thornton's baiting high elbows, trash talking the bench, huge hits behind the puck, etc. all game.
Do you remember what happened when one of the Florida defensemen threw a second high elbow at Green near the end of a game several years back. Brash, Sutherby, and Clark all started fights the next shift. I don't remember the names, but Brash and Sutherby destroyed two guys who were not fighters. What was said in that Fla. locker room later about messing with Green ?
This is a huge part of hockey. Those who refuse to admit this this are fools. When Campbell was on Buffalo, his "hit of the year" on Umberger was a response to Riley Cotey's fight win the previous series in Buffalo. The Buffalo players will all admit it, even if Campbell refuses to. The message was sent. Either through a huge hit or fight win you have to scare other teams into behaving. Scott Stevens was a master at this in the playoffs.
Asham threw a knock out punch at Matt Bradley before Bradley had his gloves off. You need a guy like King to win 1 or 2 fights at he end of a game like that, or the abuse never ends. Witness how Ovi has changed his game to the negative, since there is no "serious beat down threat" on the Caps bench. BB knew this, you could see it in his face.
You want classy grinders like Bradley and Gordo. Asham is a cheap shot artist. No room for him here.

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | August 22, 2010 1:31 AM | Report abuse

That said, Capt, compliments are ALWAYS very much appreciated. And, if I can somehow get to the Phoenix game this year, although I think it's mid-week Valentine's Day, I'll buy you a cold one.


Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 22, 2010 1:27 AM

let me know as the time draws near. i've already told my wife that she is getting a hockey game for valentines day.

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | August 22, 2010 1:49 AM | Report abuse

@cstanton

I read your post for the tenth time. You never want cheap shot artists on your team. Look what happened to Hunter's reputation after the Isles series. Guys like King keep goofs like Asham in line because they don't have to fight the other teams heavy weight or Asham. They just need someone to refuse to fight, and the message has been sent. A fight later would be prefered. You must not have watched how Marty really kept the flies off Wayne during those Cup runs in Edmonton. Marty was feared. King is feared.

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | August 22, 2010 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Hunterforcoach: Is this all true? I sure hope so. If King is this good, what a move to get him. I myself think there's romm for King AND Asham...on a team that doesn't spend $1.875M on forwards who don't really add anything significant.

As cstanton says, King is just a piece of the puzzle. By himself, he is a howitzer in the middle of the battlefield with no protection. What you need, I feel, is some of that on EACH line. Line #1 has Ovi. Line #2 has...???...hopefully that tough #2C we all want. Line #3 has...AGordo? A re-energized Laich? We'll see. Line #4 has - or could have - King, Beagle and Bradley.

Just a few tweaks is all, and easy to make.

Flash - out; Chimera - out; Steckel - out.

Umberger? - in. AGordon - in. Beagle - in. Pinner (extra forward) - in.

I would love to re-make this team in MY image. Mean. Nasty. Ready to crush your face with my boot heel if needed. Yet, a soft spot for animals, children and the elderly (like Chris Pronger) and a lover of women at heart.

Ooops, I really shouldn't write all that in public.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 22, 2010 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Here's my offer:

Flash, Chimera, Aucoin, Collins, Nylander, Erskine, Gilbert Arenas, and the movie rights to BB's book to Columbus for RJ Umberger.

Cap hit delta: Umberger + AGordon = Chimera and Flash.

Meanwhile, some people here don't want Umberger. Why? Because he predicted the Caps would fail. Excuse me, but they did fail! Ever hear: If you can't beat em, join em?

If I'm GMGM, I get Umberger and tell BB to "deal with it." If I'm BB, I get Umberger to take whatever it is he has and let it rub off on the team.

If you are a pansy-a$$ and worried about hurting feelings, well, I say, get yourself a pretty shirt and go sell flowers on the corner for a living.

"Anyone want a dozen roses?"

Me? I want the Cup. I want Umberger as my second line center.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 22, 2010 2:45 AM | Report abuse

I still think Juneau's goal to get us to The Cup is still tops. Man oh man, think about it. We went to The Cup! That still seems so far away even with what we have. Everything went right and we had butt loads of luck and some above average talent. 98 year still shows how all the stars have to align.

Posted by: BernieWolfeFan | August 22, 2010 2:57 AM | Report abuse

It was Carcillo that cheap shotted Bradley, not Asham.

Posted by: nimrodrsp | August 22, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

@nimrodrsp
@ cstanton

Aw Jeez, I'm wrong. I listened to that game in my office during a snow storm. I thought Steve Colby said in the post game that it was Asham who sucker punched Bradley. It was Carcillo. My bad. I'm in the sin bin. Sorry Asham, sorry cstanton. Cstanton, you really are a hockey legend.

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | August 22, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

King

Posted by: sgm3 | August 22, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I like Asham, but King is just as versatile and probably a bit tougher.
Asham has vet leadership/experience and maybe a bit more offensive upside. King has youth on his side.

Posted by: richmondphil2 | August 22, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Me? I want the Cup. I want Umberger as my second line center.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 22, 2010 2:45 AM |

Yep, I'd take Umberger any day, specifically because of what he said. That, and because he had a great playoff performance with the Flyers in 07/08. He's wasting away in Columbus.

This team needs some hurt feelings. Things have been too cushy around there for the last couple years. The Caps were practically browsing the SC ring catalog when he came out and said what he said.

Posted by: Fletch22 | August 22, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Boudreau didn't like the changes in the all you can eat buffet at the R&D camp this year. Too many veggies.

Posted by: alanb1 | August 22, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

pokerface: I checked Las Vegas reservations for New Year's, just on the chance of doing something there, and it is cost prohibitive.

Let me tell you what these cats want at the Stratosphere: Dec 26, $37; Dec 30, like $140; Dec 31 like $250.

I would just love to watch the WC in Vegas at the Sports Book and put money on the Caps while spending otherwise time at the Hold Em tables. Oh well. I am even making reservations tomorrow for Death Valley at the Stovepipe Wells starting on the 26th of Dec so I would be in the neighborhood. Mrstominsocal1 wants to go to this Amargosa Opera House (in the middle of the desert, apparently it's famous and well attended) also which is only an hr from Vegas. So, I will be close. But, since the last name ain't Kennedy, NYE in Vegas ain't a happenin thing.

A perfect trip would be to meet up with Capt Kirk since Caps are at Phoenix (370 miles, one way) Monday, Feb 14. BUT...the second half of Feb is always busy in preparation for 1Q earnings. I won't rule this out though since maybe I can do that. There is also Caps at Anaheim Wed Feb 16 (70 miles, one way) and Caps at Sharks Thu Feb 17 (300, one way).

I do notice the Blackhawks play at DC Sun Mar 13th almost a year to the date after Caps at Hawks this past year when Ovi got the game misconduct. Can't be a coincidence.

Otherwise, kind of quiet in here. Maybe something will actually happen soon. There's Kovy, Mitchell, Staal (NYR), maybe Kaberle, etc.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 22, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

@Hunterforcoach:

Your heart is in the right place, but your facts are ALL wrong.

The line brawl you are thinking about was against Atlanta. Clark was on the ice when Sutton went high on Green, and he did little more than grab onto the jersey of a thrasher (Kovy?). He was wearing his weird jaw-shield at the time.

On the next shift, Brashear completely destroyed Vitaly Vishnevsky while Bradley beat up Greg de Vries, who does fight. Erskine went after someone. Then Sutherby tried to go on the next shift, but that was a punchless wrestling match.

Heward was attacked on the following shift, and he beat up Mellanby.

While the details were fuzzy, your point is still well-taken. Would have been nice to get Sutton, but the message was still delivered to the ATL bench via VV's blood being smeared all over the ice.

After watching the video, I noticed that the clock continued to run for almost 20 seconds during the Brashear fight, and it was never reset for the following play. I think it was obvious to everyone in the building what was getting ready to happen, but there is no excuse for allowing the clock to run down while the home team has a small lead late in the game!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1DIzvD3eE&feature=fvw

Posted by: SnOvechkin | August 22, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

to the topic at hand;
stop tryn to freag'n fix what aint broke.everyone knows the ol rule'if its not broke,dont fix it'. All these right wing liberals are gonna turn this game into a pussy cat game.Too much tweekin will kill the sport.Changes things if definitly need be but not just for the sake of change.well thats all i have to say about that.Now the caps need to get off there butts and sign that dman and center that we need.Go CAPS!!!

Posted by: gratefuldid | August 22, 2010 11:26 PM | Report abuse

CAPS ROAD TRIP UPDATE:

We'll see, two daughters are highly in favor, wife said nothing, but she does whatever the kids (they are 29 and 25) want.

Anyway, Caps are at PHX Feb 14 (Mon), ANA Feb 16 (Wed) and SJ Feb 17 (Thu). I could maybe do all three as a road trip. I would leave my house (Santa Clarita, CA, near I-5 and CA-14) early Sun 13th and go any number of places (Joshua Tree most likely, or Havasu, Prescott, Sedona) and then Monday afternoon head for Phoenix. There's a Days Inn Country Club and 60 for $60 so not expensive for hotel after game, which is Monday night.

Tuesday maybe drive up to Sedona or something (Wickenburg, Prescott) and then hotel somewhere western AZ. Maybe Yuma, I've never been there. I could even stay Tuesday night at my other daughter's in San Diego, that would be cool, and then Wednesday drive to Anaheim for Caps at Ducks. After game drive north and spend night at my house. Thursday am drive up I-5 300 miles north to do you know the way to San Jose. Not a bad drive at all thru the San Joachin Valley. Friday drive home down Highway 1 thru Santa Cruz, Monterey, Big Sur, etc. Paso Robles (wine country). Friday night at hotel en route optional or just go home.

A lot of driving, but I can get three games, see my other daughter, stay once at home, maybe visit my lot in Lake Havasu, stay in Phoenix, meet Capt Kirk, see some wine country, get mini-vacations in several places, all for a week's vacation from work.

What I think I'll do is submit a plan to the federal government on this as a "stimulus recovery action" and ask the feds to pay for it all. I dunno, dumber things have been known to pass through Congress.

That would be Congress in DC, not Congress, AZ, which I could pass through also during this trip.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 22, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Tom - been busy all weekend so I haven't been around. I would love to do a west coast trip this yr for our trip. We typically go in Jan - Feb as well so it's perfect timing. We've had good luck going over MLK holiday as we fly out on Thursday and return Monday night. We typically end up seeing 5-6 games. February works as well though and I'm liking that trip. Also just out of curiosity, do you know what the train situation is out west from say Phoenix to LA and LA to San Jose? At times we've flown into a city then taken trains to all the connecting cities then home. Just a thought is all but I'm gonna start to pencil that in as our trip.

Lastly since you're a numbers guy, I've ran a fantasy hockey league for a long time now on cbs.sportsline.com. If you're interested let me know. We typically do the draft late Sept or early Oct. Any others let me know as well. I think I need 3 teams to get to 12 as some others will be falling off this yr. Tom what is your email address again?

Posted by: pokerfaceI208 | August 23, 2010 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Tom - another thought, what about Vegas for the Caps opener? Don't we open away on a Friday night and home opener Sat night like last year? We did that a few yrs ago as well where our 1st game was in Atlanta then the next day at home for the home opener. We flew to Atlanta then had to catch a 6am flight to DC Sat morning or we weren't getting to DC! LOL. Phillips Arena is very nice although extremely strange as well. One WHOLE side of the arena is all your box & VIP seats. I don't remember the name of it but there is a hotel attached to Phillips Arena so that was pretty cool.

Anyway, Vegas for opening weekend would be cool if you're up for it.

Posted by: pokerfaceI208 | August 23, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

@tominsocal1

"Why even have the net in the goal at all?"
First of all it is in the rulebook. I know we're discussing rule changes, but until changed the rulebook should contain a phrase like "a net of approved
design shall be attached to the goal frame". BTW, fyi in addition to the playing rules the rulebook contains rules pertaining to the rink, equipment, etc. Secondly not having a net could cause issues when pucks hit the top of the net, come back through from the other side, etc. And, some of the NHL slappers are pretty hard and fast so did it just miss or was it inside the post? With a net that call is easy, without one it becomes more difficult. The you have to go to Toronto and take time off the clock.
-----

I think they should leave the rules alone. Little tweaks like moving the nets out would be acceptable. However, the ridiculous changes should be dropped and not pursued any further. Not being able to ice the puck on the PK is just plain wrong. 2-on-2? Come on.

Posted by: BetterOffWithFedorov | August 23, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

I tried to get this through a couple of times on Friday, so I'll try again. If the nets are removed and only the frame of the goal remains I see two potential problems.

First, passing from behind the goal would become an issue. Without a net the passes may come through the back of the net and I would assume that wouldn't be allowed and the play would have to be stopped. If a puck could be passed through the goal and bounce off of the goaltender and count as a goal, that would be dumb. That would be like letting basketball players throw the ball through the hoop from underneath and it coming straight back down and counting as a basket. Goofy right?

The second potential problem is without a net I see an increase in stoppages for reviews. The shots come so fast and furious that without a net a shot that goes just wide might be in question. There are reviews at times due to a hard shot coming back out, but that is a much lower number than reviews resulting of being unsure if a net went between the posts and under the crossbar. All you have to do is play street hockey with a battered net a few hundred times to realize just how often the question of whether or not the puck went into the goal comes up.

Posted by: fanohock1 | August 23, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

pokerface:

tom_orem@yahoo.com

I can't plan anything on opening weekend, since I have Grand Canyon reservations for third week in Oct and couldn't put two trips so close. If that trip falls apart though, and Vegas becomes possible, I'll let you know.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 23, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

@fanhock1

I don't think anyone is seriously saying not to have a net. I think tominsocal1 threw it out in more of a theoretical tone that technically you don't need a net. But the overall point was the idea to narrow the goal to create more room behind the net.

The depth of the goal is unnecessarily large now considering all the ways they can attach the goal to the ice.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Yes, it was my thought that the first thing to do, if you must do anything, is reduce the goalie's pads back to the size they were in the 60s (watch any old footage and you can see). Next, if you must do something else, rather than move/widen blue line or move net out or whatever, or rather than prohibit icing while killing penalties, just make the net a little more narrow in back.

And I still don't like it that it's so easy to freeze the puck.

How bout this proposal - the goalie can only freeze the puck if it's in the crease? If the goalie covers the puck outside the crease, that's delay of game is my view. I understand the person who said they don't want the goalie to have to play the puck, that could lead to dopey goals. Agreed. But, if it's outside the crease, the goalie doesn't have to play it.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 23, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

fanohock: Yes, the idea for absolutely no net was rhetorical. What sgm suggested and I agreed was the net could be made a little smaller in the back and therefore give the added room they might want w/o having to move the lines. The net as is I think is about 44 inches deep and easily they could make it say 30-36 inches deep. The size of the net as it is now is really a hindrance to the offense. make it more rectangular and not so deep and you open up for more passing behind the goal. Then the defense has to watch for this and maybe you don't have it like the Habs did to Caps where they just clogged the slot.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 23, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Why in the world are we talking about more offense??? Didn't the Caps score more goals this last season than have been scored in quite a few years with the rules that are already in place?? I don't want the game any more wide open, I like a close checking, physical game........don't take any more physicality OUT of the game!

Posted by: PhilR | August 23, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

@PhilR

Rule changes are based on the entire NHL and not just the Caps.

I forget where I saw it but I think the average amount of goals scored per game is about 5.8 or so. The high point(Oilers era) was in the mid 8's I think. The NHL, the owners and GMs think that a goal per game average of around 7 is ideal. Where the league is now is a lot lower than where it wants to be. (I think it was Darcy Reiger who made this statement.)

Just in case someone doesn't grossly misinterpret this, the goals per game is for both teams combined.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Just saw a Peter Tessier blog and it seems that Willie Mitchell is supposed to make his decision today. Hope he decides to join the Caps.

Posted by: MReilly9 | August 23, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Just saw that Huet will be playing in the Swiss league this year.

Posted by: MReilly9 | August 23, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

@MReilly9

Me too. I think that once Mitchell decides where he is going the Bieksa situation will sort itself out soon afterwards. A few of the mentioned destinations for Bieksa (Caps, Sharks, Kings) are also possible destinations for Mitchell.

I think it will have ramifications on a possible Flash trade too.

If the Caps don't sign Mitchell I could see Flash going to Vancouver in a deal for Bieksa. If the Caps do sign Mitchell I think it would be much more likely Flash goes somewhere else, if he goes anywhere at all.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The suggestion for smaller goalie pads continually comes up. As a matter of fact I believe the pads will be smaller this year. Anyhow, my point it, the Oilers era goaltenders had very small pads compared to todays goaltenders. That's not the only reason they scored because they were talented as hell, but there's no doubt it contributed. I also realize the sticks used in todays game adds to the velocity of the shots but the goaltenders that can keep good position in the crease will stop a lot of shots just because there isn't all that much net to shoot at.

Posted by: fanohock1 | August 23, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Which player would be better for the Caps, Mitchell or Bieksa?

Posted by: MReilly9 | August 23, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Looks like Atlanta made a Little signing today.

Posted by: pokerfaceI208 | August 23, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

@MReilly9

I think Mitchell. He is the more defensive defenseman of the two. In addition, it seems like he was one of the real leaders of the Canucks and many people were suggesting the Canucks switch the captaincy from Luongo to Mitchell. With how young the Caps D is, that sort of leadership could be very valuable for the D.

This article gives a good comparison of the two. What strikes me the most is the Canucks fans voting 77% to keep Mitchell while only 6% voted to keep Bieksa (the other percentages were for either both or neither). It doesn't speak bad of Bieksa but it speaks very highly of Mitchell.

http://www.nucksmisconduct.com/2010/8/16/1625579/who-would-you-rather-have-kevin

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

fanohock: If you are truly for "traditional hockey, as the game was," then you should be wanting a little more scoring. Obviously the Oilers era in the 80s was the upper end. Somehow I have the number 6.7 in my head as a historical average (sgm put that the league would like 7.0). Therefore you and I should be in agreement that something should be done to return to that average. The league has reduced cluthcing and grabbing and has eliminated the two-line pass as offsides. I think we agree that smaller pads would be the next step. Nothing radical about that at all (just like when they made goalies stop wearing size 72 jerseys). And, if that isn't enough, making the goal itself not quite as deep is less radical than those other proposals, some of which fundamentally change the game.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 23, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

@sgm3

Thanks for the link on the two Vancouver d-men.

Posted by: MReilly9 | August 23, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Sure would be nice to hear some news, this waiting stuff is just not good for my health!

@tominsocal,

They have already made enough changes to promote more scoring IMHO. Shrinking the goalies pads back down to 80's size would be a disaster unless they take away all the modernized equipment of the forwards as well.....namely the advances in sticks that allow the players to shoot much harder and have better location control of the puck. There would be 8 or 9 goals per game I think.....and teams like the Caps would be much higher than that.

Posted by: PhilR | August 23, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm in favor of reducing the goalie's pads some. Their leg pads are ridculously big and the goalies are good enough now that, with those pads, they can pretty much block off the entire lower third of the goal.

I'd say reduce the size of those a little and also reduce the size of the goalie glove. Those are huge too. They could be a little smaller too.

These reductions do not need to be drastically smaller, but just a little bit. Every extra open square inch will help.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I find a 1-0 game just as exciting as a 6-5 game. I know I am in the minority on that, and I wouldn't want to see 1-0 every game like soccer but parody adds more excitement to the game than rule changing to increase scoring. I welcome changes to the game too. Calling more penalties for interference and holding (clutching and grabbing) has made the game faster and has ended the careers of slower less skilled players. I also liked the removal of the two line pass. That opened up the game because the defenseman have to give up the blueline when control of the puck has been lost in the offensive zone. If not, players like Ovi will kill them. A lot of people want to say that Ovi cherry picks which shows that some people just are not paying attention to the game. Ovi will be used to stretch the defense at times when we are down, but more times than not it is his ability to read plays before others just as Gretzky, Lemieux, and Messier were able to do.

If you are in the camp that Ovi cherry picks. I will ask you to watch with unbiased eyes this season. If you have a DVR it is much easier to enjoy the game because you can watch replays at your discretion. Anyhow, watch how Ovi will be in the correct defensive position, high-slot when he is the weak side wing, and challenging the point when he is the strong side wing. What you need to watch for is when the opposing team loses control of the puck. You will notice that Ovi immediately takes off like a bat out of heck when he realizes his team mate will get the puck. In turn, the D-men, or Backstrom are thinking pass up ice before they even gain control of the puck. Before you know it Ovi is on a 1 on 1 or a breakaway. Often times he collects an indirect pass.

Posted by: fanohock1 | August 23, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I agree with PhilR. The players should go back to wood. The goaltenders would still do better in todays game though because they are much better athletes than they were in the 1980s and before. As a fan I get tired of seeing $500+ sticks snapping when a player is on the PK. Wooden sticks broke but not nearly as often, and they normally exploded on shots. Even if they cracked and a player didn't realize it they could withstand receiving or intercepting a pass without falling apart to a players surprise at an inopportune time.

Posted by: fanohock1 | August 23, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

PhilR: We must disagree on this one. I think the 5.8 avg, at the lower end of the historical spectrum I believe, is too low. This isn't to demean 1-0 games. Like any sport, too little scoring and too much are both bad IMO. I believe they should do just enough minor tweaking to get the 5.8 up to 6.7 or 7.0.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 23, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Shrinking the goalies pads back down to 80's size would be a disaster unless they take away all the modernized equipment of the forwards as well.....namely the advances in sticks that allow the players to shoot much harder and have better location control of the puck. There would be 8 or 9 goals per game I think.....and teams like the Caps would be much higher than that.

Posted by: PhilR | August 23, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse


the old equipments that the goalies wore were half the size but TWICE as heavy than they are now... just shrinking the size won't do any damage to the game.

I don't know why they let them get bigger in the first place.

and what's wrong with 8 or 9 goals/game??

Posted by: joek443 | August 23, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

tominsocal,

Guess we will, I personally see nothing wrong with a six goal per game average....why can't a 3-2 game be exciting? For that matter, I am with fanohock1 that a lot of 1-0 games are the most exciting games you will ever see because that means both teams are playing excellent D which means the body is most likely being taken in an agressive way which to me is one of the most exciting parts of the game. O well, we can't agree all the time!

Posted by: PhilR | August 23, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Which player would be better for the Caps, Mitchell or Bieksa?

Posted by: MReilly9 | August 23, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Bieksa get the edge. He's younger, nastier, a little better on the offensive end (which means BB will love him and give him more ice time), and no concussion history. You can make a case for Mitchell because he's probably better defensively but you can't get around his concussion issues. They're both a little risky because of health

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

joek443,

I just personally prefer a more defensive, hard hitting game. 5-4 games are just to wide open for me and promote the Green's of the world being nominated for the Norris (although the second half of last year he improved immensely). Just personal preference and I feel if you are going to take away the modernization of goalie equipment you should also take away those modern marvels from the forwards.

And before everyone starts this is not Green bashing, he fits perfectly in this run and gun system. I have just always liked to follow the Langway's and Stevens' of the world.

Posted by: PhilR | August 23, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

@PhilR

I agree completely that a 3-2 game or a 1-0 game can be very exciting.

For one particular game, it is not about overall goals scored but scoring chances. You want to see each team getting a good amount of scoring chances. If a player misses or the goalie comes up with huge save that is often just as exciting as, if not more than, a goal.

Over the course of an entire season, more scoring chances will mean more goals.

That's why you try to increase the average goals per game over the entire season because it is indicative of the amount of good scoring chances had on a per game basis. That means there are more scoring chances in each game which means more excitement.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Me? I want the Cup. I want Umberger as my second line center.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 22, 2010 2:45 AM | Report abuse

Maybe he oughta be the GM. He seems to understand this team's inherent weakensses :)

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

@ PhilR

taking away the modernization of goalie equipment would be making them HEAVIER and I'm not taking about making them heavier but just smaller, back to where they were.

making something bigger is not modernizing anything in my book because just about everything modern gets smaller, not bigger.

goalies would just have the benefit of having lighter equipments just like the rest of the players.

Posted by: joek443 | August 23, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

also the size of goalie pads have nothing to do with the way you play defense... yes, you would have more goals scored but doesn't mean it would be less of a defensive battle.

in the 80's 3.0 GAA was a sign of a good goalie and defense, right now it's about 2.0... I think we can live with somewhere in between.

Posted by: joek443 | August 23, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

also the size of goalie pads have nothing to do with the way you play defense... yes, you would have more goals scored but doesn't mean it would be less of a defensive battle.

in the 80's 3.0 GAA was a sign of a good goalie and defense, right now it's about 2.0... I think we can live with somewhere in between.

Posted by: joek443 | August 23, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

sgm: Actually, smaller goalie pads wouldn't increase scoring chances. It would just take a few saves where the goalie just barely deflected the puck and turn them into goals.

cstanton: If I get the job, I'll hire you and sgm as deputies so I can watch you guys scrap all day.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 23, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

King

Posted by: sgm3 | August 22, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

why are you voting on this? you don't even know Asham or King.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton1

his rational will be King makes less money for a 4th liner. He doesnt know Asham can be used on pretty much any line but the 1st line depending on the style of play and balance of lines. Asham much better for his value than King. Asham is basically Matt Bradley but makes $300K less, which means Asham is a better value than our entire 4th line.

Posted by: ThePat | August 23, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of you who are talking about smaller goalie pads or not being able to freeze the puck outside of the crease have ever played goalie. I have, and even with pads that are already bigger then the current NHL allows I still have many burses from where pucks have hit me. I can only imagine how many more they would be if I had current NHL ones or smaller. Some of the stuff they get rid of is 100% meant for protection anyway. Like the Thigh-boards, for those who don't know they are the little flat pads that used to come out of the top of the leg pads and almost every goalie would then tuck under their pants. In all my life playing goalie I can only remember one time that those pads have stopped a puck from going in that I would not have gotten without that pad. However there were many, many times I felt the puck hit that pad, and my leg behind it, and the save was made. If that pad had not have been there my knee cap would have been bruised or worse.

The main reason why there isn't as much scoring as in the Gretzky days or before is because now goaltenders are some of the best skaters on the team and can get from one side of the net to the other fast without being so out of position that another pass would be a goal without the goalie having a chance at it. Watch some of those old games, see how the goalies would go down with their legs under their body instead of out in the butterfly we see today. It wasn't about pad size it was that they didn't have the style to cover the net like they do today. Find an old Patrick Roy game from when he was with the Habs from his first Cup in 1986. He still had the small pads of the day but he was also starting to develop the style that is used today and gave up less then two goals a game.

Posted by: icehammer97 | August 23, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton

We're talking about a huge intangible here. What guys used to say in the 80's when the Wings had Probert and Kocur was you never wanted to piss them off. That's anyone on the team. "You were always aware those guys were 30 feet away."(Manson) I know Cooke will never go with King, but one of Cooke's teammates may be forced into it. Who the heck on Pitt wants to go with King, or put up with his pounding forcheck because he's ticked at Cooke.
---------------------------------------
I agree with all of this Huntsy, and you've said it well. However, I think the Penguins have already faced some feared enforcer types over the past few yrs without it affecting their game one bit. They're still the most prolific hitting team in the league over the past 3 seasons. And many of them have been aggressive questionable hits. DJK will not stop Matt Cooke, or Asham or Orpik from running our players. And frankly, I don't think Bruce knows how to effectively utilize an enforcer anyway so he'll just scratch the tip of King's potential usefulness. And the only disagreement I have with what you said was the examples you gave (Kocur, Probs, Manson) are not equivalent to King because King is not a loose-cannon type who will just clobber a player on the ice in a reckless fashion. Manson, Probs, Kocur were more scary because they were unpredictably reckless. The game has changed, the players have changed, everyone is more hyper-sensitive about attacks on the ice, and King really has never been that type of player.

"Remember Cooke had to fight Thornton this year or the entire Pens team was gonna' have to put up with Thornton's baiting high elbows, trash talking the bench, huge hits behind the puck, etc. all game."

Cooke manned up. Much the way Claude finally fought McCarty. But if Thornton had taken a run at Crosby, you can be damn sure that Godard or Rupp would've done the same to a Bruins skill player (if they had any, lol)

"Do you remember what happened when one of the Florida defensemen threw a second high elbow at Green near the end of a game several years back. Brash, Sutherby, and Clark all started fights the next shift. I don't remember the names, but Brash and Sutherby destroyed two guys who were not fighters. What was said in that Fla. locker room later about messing with Green ?"

Atl, not Fl. Sutton was the dman. Vishnevsky was the guy they were also mad at because of his aggressive hitting earlier in that game. But your point is still valid. also, Clark wasn't part of it. Heward was the last guy I think who fought and he sorta held his own against Mellanby.
And Glen Hanlon is old-school, he greenlighted that entire series of events with his choice of personnel on the ice. Bruce would have no clue how to send a msg.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton1

his rational will be King makes less money for a 4th liner. He doesnt know Asham can be used on pretty much any line but the 1st line depending on the style of play and balance of lines. Asham much better for his value than King. Asham is basically Matt Bradley but makes $300K less, which means Asham is a better value than our entire 4th line.

Posted by: ThePat | August 23, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

whew. Someone with some sense.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

@nimrodrsp
@ cstanton

Aw Jeez, I'm wrong. I listened to that game in my office during a snow storm. I thought Steve Colby said in the post game that it was Asham who sucker punched Bradley. It was Carcillo. My bad. I'm in the sin bin. Sorry Asham, sorry cstanton. Cstanton, you really are a hockey legend.

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | August 22, 2010 11:28 AM

glad i read the rest of the thread before i jumped on you for the Asham/Carcillo error :) Nimrod thx for jumping in and clarifying.

For the sake of discussion though, it doesn't bother me one bit if it had been Asham who had taken a cheapshot at Bradley. I'm sure if I thought hard enough I could come up with a few instances where Asham himself has crossed the line. Players who play a chippy occasionally cheapshot brand of hockey don't bother me. As long they're effective in their role, I won't turn my nose up at em. Stanley Cup rosters are littered with cheap shot players. They don't prevent a team from winning unless they take a severely ill-timed penalty. And that happens so infrequently its not worth discussing. You don't win Cups by being nice guys. You need many different elements to win and guys who can intimidate, guys who are willing to cross the line here and there, all contribute to the eventual prize. I'll take Carcillo as a 3rd/4th liner on the Caps in a heartbeat. And Downie as well. And Konopka as my center. Underrated faceoff guy that he is.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Thank you icehammer97 for giving your view point about shrinking the pads, unfortunately we appear to be in the minority on this point.

Posted by: PhilR | August 23, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Remember when Bieksa launched a coupla elbows at Oveckin and Clark got mad because the Canucks were already up in the game? Clark rams Bieksa into the boards hard, Bieksa retaliates and they have a little scrap. The fact that Bieksa plays on the edge is what makes him so valuable because he's a warrior out there. He can play reg minutes and still dole out some nice hits, elbows, roughs etc. If Bieksa wasn't an edgy player he'd be a dime a dozen offensive dman with marginal value. Same reason that Mitchell has good value. He goes after other team's skill players with big hits. He doesn't mind running someone from behind into the boards.

we really need to get past the notion that this organization is "too good" for certain types of players. Embrace the cheapshot nature of hockey instead of recoiling from it. Its good for the game, its good for winning hockey games because it helps make a team a little harder to play against. Once in a while someone gets hurt and that's happened for the last 100 yrs. You take your punishment and move on. But you don't abandon that style or philosophy. We don't have to be cavemen out there, but we do need a little more geico mentality.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Stanley Cup rosters are littered with cheap shot players. They don't prevent a team from winning unless they take a severely ill-timed penalty. And that happens so infrequently its not worth discussing. You don't win Cups by being nice guys.


I think Claude Lemieux during his time with the Avs would be a good example of this type player that knew when to take his shots. He took has share of cheap shots but man, teams knew where he was on the ice at all times!

Those Wings/Avs series back then were the greatest!

Posted by: PhilR | August 23, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

The main reason why there isn't as much scoring as in the Gretzky days or before is because now goaltenders are some of the best skaters on the team and can get from one side of the net to the other fast without being so out of position that another pass would be a goal without the goalie having a chance at it
-----------------
also that the overall skill is much greater throughout the lineup now also is a big contributor. More offense on the checking lines, more offense from the blueline, less great defensive players both at the forward and the defenseman positions. The 4 on 4 hockey in OT. The fact that back in the 80s when two players went off on coincidental minors, it was still 5 on 5 hockey out there, so less room to be offensively creative. The entire game has moved towards MORE GOALS. And NHL contracts seemed to be doled out using SGM's special computing algorithms based entirely on offensive stats so hockey has become a big money opportunity for players who rack up some points.

The entire sport has been poisoned! argh

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I think Claude Lemieux during his time with the Avs would be a good example of this type player that knew when to take his shots. He took has share of cheap shots but man, teams knew where he was on the ice at all times!

Those Wings/Avs series back then were the greatest!

Posted by: PhilR | August 23, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

the avs basically forced the Wings to toughen back up after they had lost some of that when they dumped Kocur and Probert. And once the Wings pushed back (led by McCarty, LaPointe, Shanahan, Maltby, Vlad, Ward, Draper), that entire rivalry turned to Detroit's favor. I can almost remember the shift where I felt that rivalry turn. It was as much psychological as it was a physical thing. The Wings just had had enough of the Avs and they pushed back real hard. When you had Wings skill players running Avs tough guys headfirst into the boards, that's a significant event.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton1

I was able to get my hands on the copies of the game tapes(digital versions thereof) of most of King's games the past few years. I have also watched most of Asham's games the past 5 years as I watch most Flyers and Islanders games.

So yes, I do have very extensive knowledge of both and King is bigger, faster, stronger, grittier, less expensive and younger than Asham. That's why he is better.

@tominscoal1

You're right that shrinking goalie pads will not increse the number of scoring chances. But it will turn some slight scoring chances into decent scoring chances by increasing the shooter's chances of scoring.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

From ESPN:

Summer Skate -- Washington Capitals

Last season was a disappointment for Capitals fans as the team bowed out to the Montreal Canadiens in a seven-game series after holding a supposedly insurmountable 3-1 series lead. With last season behind them, the Capitals are looking to flat-out dominate the opposition on the scoreboard once again. The question, however, will be whether the team can prevent goals -- particularly in the playoffs. This year will be an important one for Alex Ovechkin & Co., but they're fortunate to have the added help of a young blueliner on the rise.

Trending up: John Carlson
Last season: 2.0 GVT / VUKOTA Projection 3.1 GVT

Carlson made a name for himself in the 2010 world junior hockey championship by scoring the overtime winner in Saskatchewan to capture the tournament gold medal for the U.S. The American rear guard is a terrific skater with strong hockey sense and puck skills. Carlson did not play much in the NHL last season but did make a significant contribution for the Capitals in the playoffs. With as much talent as he has, and with some questions on the Capitals' blue line, do not be surprised if Carlson exceeds VUKOTA's expectations for him in 2010-11 -- he has the talent to do so.

Trending down: Mike Knuble
Last season: 12.7 GVT / VUKOTA Projection: 6.6 GVT

Knuble certainly exceeded VUKOTA projections last season, posting 29 goals and 53 points and very efficient scoring numbers at even strength. The veteran winger is 38 years old, and although playing in a Washington system that emphasizes offense should help his totals, VUKOTA still projects the winger to finish with 19 goals and 42 points in 2010-11. If Knuble continues to work hard along the boards and goes to the net as he usually does, the Capitals probably will be satisfied with those totals. -- Pollock

E.J.'s name to know: G Michal Neuvirth

At this point, by his words and his actions (to date), Capitals GM George McPhee is prepared to enter the season with a pair of 22-year-old kid goalies. The club opted against re-signing veteran Jose Theodore, and the Caps haven't made a move to add another experienced stopper (yet).

Semyon Varlamov, with just 51 regular-season/playoff games of NHL experience, enters training camp as the club's clear-cut No. 1. That means that, after backstopping Hershey (AHL) to back-to-back Calder Cup titles, Neuvirth won't get a full-time opportunity in D.C., but he'll have a shot if Varlamov slips up. Neuvirth has played 22 NHL games over the past two seasons (including 17 last season), posting 11 victories and a very respectable .910 save percentage.

The 6-foot-1, 200-pound goalie came to North America as a teenager to play in the OHL and was the Caps' second-round pick (34th overall) in 2006. And, although you might not realize it, Neuvirth is actually a month older than Varlamov.

The Caps clearly like their young Czech-born goaltender. Early last season, Caps coach Bruce Boudreau told me he saw big things.

Posted by: Jordan_Kitts | August 23, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton1

I was able to get my hands on the copies of the game tapes(digital versions thereof) of most of King's games the past few years. I have also watched most of Asham's games the past 5 years as I watch most Flyers and Islanders games.

So yes, I do have very extensive knowledge of both and King is bigger, faster, stronger, grittier, less expensive and younger than Asham. That's why he is better.
-------------------------

You realize that Asham racked up a ton of goals in the juniors while King was perceived primarily as a tough guy who could score a few goals. If you used a "tough guy who can play" scale of sorts - Asham would be about a 6 or 7, an Ian Schultz would be a 5 or a 6, and a DJKing would be a 3.

Which is why Asham and Schultz were 3rd rounders and King was a 6th rounder (and would never have been drafted by the Caps). Based on NHL potential, Asham has been considered a much better NHL prospect than has King (who has been looked at only as a 4th line depth tough guy)

And Asham's path to the NHL has never really been in doubt because at worst he could always be a 4th liner with the upside to play on lines 2 thru 4. King otoh has been looked upon as a marginal NHL prospect whose main asset is his ability to fight with an honorable mention to the fact he can skate well enough to lay some heavy hits down low (ala a Stortini or JFJacques type)

Luckily for King, the Blues like his sort of player and they gave him a shot. Much in the same way Shawn Thornton and Travis Moen got brief looks in Chicago and then got picked up by Brian Burke in Anaheim.

Still doesn't change the fact that Asham has proven to be more versatile.

I like both players don't get me wrong. But the only reason there's so much love for DJK is because McPhee picked him up. If he was still a Blues player and a few of us who liked that element had mentioned his name, some of the same folks who now claim to be a fan of his would be turning their noses up at him. I'd still take Brandon Prust over either Asham or King because he's a better combination of versatility, youth, and toughness. But I guess for Caps fans to give a player like him any credit he'd have to first be acquired :)

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

So yes, I do have very extensive knowledge of both and King is bigger, faster, stronger, grittier, less expensive and younger than Asham. That's why he is better.
-------------------------------------------

Where do you get that he's allegedly "faster" than Asham?

Asham is also more skilled and therefore pulls down more ice time. He's also a consistent hitter and a strong middleweight fighter. He also has the edge in experience and veteran leadership status. DJK is also bigger, stronger, younger, and cheaper than Bradley btw. And Gordo. And a few others on our team. I'm with you on this, lets replace em all with King types!

But at least you're watching tape now (or claim to be anyway) before passing judgment. So there's still some hope for you.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Why is Mick Vukota projecting Mike Knuble's scoring totals for this upcoming season?

http://www.hockeygoon.com/vukota.html

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 23, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

now Mick was a true thug. Could barely handle the puck. Rarely got in deep on the forecheck to lay hits. He just kinda mugged other players. I favored the Rob Ray types a bit more because they were quicker and had a lot more interaction with other team's top players.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

King is a better hitter than Asham and Asham's skill level is, at best, only slightly better than King's. Give King the extra game experience and his skill level will soon be equal to Asham's.

King is faster because when comparing how each skated against comparable players it was clear that King has more speed and acceleration.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

King is a better hitter than Asham and Asham's skill level is, at best, only slightly better than King's. Give King the extra game experience and his skill level will soon be equal to Asham's.
-----------------------------

Asham's skill level is at best only slightly better?

if that was true, why did Asham blow King away at every level of hockey when it came to contributing offensively? Asham's junior #s are 3 or 4x King's numbers. Arron's NHL offensive numbers are more than King's AHL numbers.

so where you get that their skill levels are fairly equivalent?

because if that was the case, King would absolutely be the better player. And he'd be looked at as a legitimate 3rd liner instead of a part time 4th liner.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Asham is by far, the better all around player. King is one dimensional. Asham can also pitch in with some big goals.

Posted by: underpants2 | August 23, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Lets put it this way. Based on everything these 2 players have done currently, Asham is clearly the better player and the better bargain. The only adv King has is size, strength, fighting ability. But Asham's strength has never been an issue anyway and neither has his fighting ability. Its been good enough to let him play his role very effectively.

King can always be groomed into a better player if an org takes the time and gives him opportunities. But has McPhee EVER been able to groom a tough guy? Not once. So why do you think it'll happen now? I'm not bagging on King. No reason why he can't at least become the type of player Stortini has developed into for the Oil, but with better fighting ability. But to this point, he hasn't proven he's anything more than an AHL tough guy.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

man, if we could get

Bieksa and Mitchell on the back line

And add King, Pinner, AG, Beagle to the forward lineup this yr

and get rid of

Flash, Chimera, BGordo, Poti, and maybe Sloan

I could maybe come on board.

Still need a 2nd line center but we could get away with a more finesse type player at center if we upgraded the entire team toughness.

OV-Back-Knuble
Semin-?-Fehr
Brads-Steckel-AG
King-Beags-Pinner

that right there is a team at least on paper who could go into any hostile arena and play any type of game the opposition wants to play. Then with Green, Carlson, Mitchell, Bieksa, Sarge, and Erskine on the back line - its a great blend of different skillsets.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the King and Asham debate it is kind of pointless to be honest. They are two completely different type of players right now. Right now Asham and what he does, King cant even touch him. King has basically just been a fighter and never developed the rest of his game.

Asham has 6 years on King. If King can put up 20 points and over 120 PIMs in either of the next two years than a comparison can start to be made. But King has a long, long way to go sgm3 to even begin a realistic debate on this.

Posted by: ThePat | August 23, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

King has been injured the past few years. So he has had only that one full season to develop his skill. When King was 22(his only lengthy NHL season) he had 3G and 3A. Asham, at the same age had 2G and 3A. Just from watching King play you can tell he has the tools to become serviceably skilled. He just needs to stop getting flukey injuries so he can show off all facets of his game.

All that matters is how they will perform next year. King is bigger, faster, stronger, younger(which is very important for a grinding type of energy forward), grittier, and less expensive than Asham. Asham has slightly better skill but given all the other stuff King has he is a better player than Asham. Especially considering the role they would play on the Caps(4th line duty).

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

@gm3

If Asham was on the Caps hed be in the lineup every night. I highly doubt King will be. They are at different points in their careers. Asham is proven. King cant prove himself because he gets hurts. You need to stick to stats because when you try to employ logic sometimes it comes off as illogical.

Posted by: ThePat | August 23, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

to drive home the final point, the Caps do many things right obviously like bringing out the offensive side to players who have that skill potential (Green, Flash, etc).

But under McPhee they have never developed an NHL fighter. They utilized Brashear who had been developed in Vancouver and Philly's system after being misused in Montreal's system. But the Caps don't understand how to take a young fighter and put him in specific situations that really develop him. They tried to do it a bit with Peat and screwed it up independent of Peat's injury issues. They actually started off with a guy who was very similar to King in that Peat could skate well for a big guy, throw heavy hits, not take bad penalties, and throw down with the other heavies. At the end of Peat's brief tenure, he wasn't doing much hitting, much of anything really except a token fight here and there.

The only way for King to truly succeed is to be allowed to take some aggressive penalties, allowed to have some margin for error, given decent ice time, and feel like his coach has confidence in him and he's not a mistake away from being benched. Based on the way Boudreau handled Brashear's penalty on Shane Hnidy, I have zero faith the Caps will properly and fully develop King. Right after Brashear got an earful from Boudreau, he quit playing an aggressive hitting game and he still lost ice time despite having a stron track record of not leaving the Caps shorthanded. That tentative play actually carried into the series with Philly where Brashear was virtually nonexistent in the hitting game.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Especially considering the role they would play on the Caps(4th line duty).
---------------------

lol, come on. Asham would be relegated to 4th line duty on the Caps? He's already proven he can play on a 3rd line, and he was used against the opposition's top lines as well. King will be lucky to get the same amount of ice time that Asham would see. King will probably get into 40 games this yr if healthy. And less shifts per game than Asham.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

@ThePat

I'm saying from what I saw that King is bigger, faster, stronger, and grittier than Asham.

Yes Asham is proven. He has proven he is smaller, slower, weaker, and less gritty than King.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

@sgm3

You know you are convincing everyone on hear that you know absolutely nothing about hockey, right?

And I guess Asham would rather be weaker than always getting hurt. Not getting hurt and being on the ice is part of actually playing the game. By your logic Lebron James would be a great hockey player if he could skate.

Posted by: ThePat | August 23, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

lost in all this however is that the Penguins seem to have a very defined philosophy. They go after gritty players who can play reg minutes. Gary Roberts. Bill Guerin. Eric Godard. Craig Adams. Mike Rupp. Chris Kunitz. Matt Cooke. Jay McKee. And now Arron Asham.

Pitt's skill is often talked about, but their penchant for edgy physical players is pretty apparent. They're always concerned with making sure they have enough toughness to balance out their skill. That philosophy then carries over to the ice and how that team plays hockey. When you rack up 200 more hits in a season than another team (like the Caps), that's no fluke. That's part of their formula.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

forgot about Laraque also.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

And I obviously spell here wrong when I type fast. Go me.

Posted by: ThePat | August 23, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

sgm: It looks like we're playing "smear the queer" again and, once more, you're on the bottom of the pile with the football.

Not only are you on the bottom, but cstanton, U2 and even now ThePat are throwing punches.

For God's sake let go of that football!

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 23, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Yes Asham is proven. He has proven he is smaller, slower, weaker, and less gritty than King.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

oh no you didnt! You went for that joke but in the process you also proved you have absolutely no idea what type of player Asham is. Asham is better than any bottom 6 player the Caps have fielded in a long time.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

@ThePat

UNless King has some malady that causes loss of bone strength(rare for people his age and highly doubtful considering his profession) breaking a bone in a finger is a fluke. Hurting a shoulder once is a fluke. Ovie hurt his shoulder, does that mean he is weak?

Those injuries have nothing to do with strength. It would be like arguing a tiny little computer nerd is stronger than Ray Lewis because the computer nerd never got hurt.

"By your logic Lebron James would be a great hockey player if he could skate."

I'm confused, please point me to where my logic states, or implies, this.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

All this love for Asham - there must be a reason why NJ didn't keep him, Philly didn't keep him, the Islanders didn't keep him, and the Canadiens didn't keep him. When he get to the Rangers he'll have played for every team in the Atlantic Division.

Posted by: Thisistheyear | August 23, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Is this talk of no touch icing going raise the value on my signed Pat Peake rookie card at all?

Posted by: BorntoHula | August 23, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to the SAOTI Ranch. Come on in and feel free to beat one of our lovely dead horses. The following horses have died this summer and are available for immediate beating...

GMGM sucks
Trade Semin
We need more grit
Asham v King
Mitchell or Bieska
Katie Change your pic it still shows Tarik
Cstanton1 I'm right
sgm3 No I'm right

Horses soon to die that will be available to beat further...

I like the Flash trade
I hate the Flash trade
GMGM Still sucks
Shampoo is Better
No Conditioner is Better

Posted by: SeminAllOverTheIce | August 23, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

tom i read you're going on a trip? very cool. I've done the wine country Cali thing twice now. I'll try to think of some good tips. A few yrs ago I went up to a place called the Sea Ranch in Northern Cali and then drove down thru Napa into Monterrey and finally ended up in Vegas. Real pretty country.

Monterrey btw is the most dogfriendly place in the US. Their restaurants all have dog menus and serve NY Strips to dogs who get their own dish. I'm guessing Mike Vick is public enemy #1 there.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"Asham is better than any bottom 6 player the Caps have fielded in a long time"

An absolutely irrelevant comment when comparing King to Asham. You might as well have said "The Galapagos Islands are an Ecuadorain Province". It is just as relevant.

@tominsocal1

No worries. I find their rantings hilarious.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

All this love for Asham - there must be a reason why NJ didn't keep him, Philly didn't keep him, the Islanders didn't keep him, and the Canadiens didn't keep him. When he get to the Rangers he'll have played for every team in the Atlantic Division.
---------

oh no, the dreaded "if a player plays for different teams it must mean he stinks"
Didn't Owen Nolan play for like 5 or 6 diff teams? Didn't Doug Gilmour play for 8 teams? And 5 or 6 different ones in his prime? Let go that argument. It holds no water. The flip side is that many teams apparently have wanted him.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

@tominsocal1

No worries. I find their rantings hilarious.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

its not rantings. Its "lessons", and free ones at that. So you should be more appreciative.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

cstanton, yes, if we can swing it, I would drive to Phoenix, Anaheim and San Jose for those games mid-Feb. My house is kinda in the middle of the triangle if you connected all three like that. Been to wine country 3-4 times and will go again when we can. Especially since we are now driving distance.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | August 23, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"Asham is better than any bottom 6 player the Caps have fielded in a long time"

An absolutely irrelevant comment when comparing King to Asham. You might as well have said "The Galapagos Islands are an Ecuadorain Province". It is just as relevant.
-----------------------------

really? how is it irrelevant? Can you say that King is better than any bottom 6 player the Caps have fielded?

if you were a cheese, you'd be Swiss.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Is this talk of no touch icing going raise the value on my signed Pat Peake rookie card at all?

Posted by: BorntoHula | August 23, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

brutal
Does anyone remember who the other player was involved in that play? I don't. But I do remember that Peake was actually playing the best hockey of his brief career right before that injury. He was using his speed to get in on the forecheck and was starting to throw his weight around. Kinda like Fehr slowly got more aggressive as he got comfortable late last season.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

new post for those that want to get out of this vortex

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | August 23, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

@BorntoHula

Not sure, all I know is the ink from the autographed version of that card smears a bit when using it as a coaster. Both Peake's and Brendan Witt's for that matter.

Posted by: SeminAllOverTheIce | August 23, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton1

The comparison is between Asham and King. Compare them to each other. That is what is relevant.

Fehr is a much better player than Asham it is an absolute joke that you try to say otherwise.

If you asked the Pens who would they rather have, if both could be had at $700k, Fehr or Asham? How long do you think it would take them to decide?

"Didn't Owen Nolan play for like 5 or 6 diff teams? Didn't Doug Gilmour play for 8 teams? And 5 or 6 different ones in his prime? Let go that argument. It holds no water. The flip side is that many teams apparently have wanted him"

Gilmour and Nolan were only traded during their primes and in big time trades. Asham was let to walk as a free agent multiple times for nothing in return. Comparing apples to oranges.

@ThePat

Why don't you watch some tape of the games and then get back to me before you make your flippant comparisons.

@SAOTI

I prefer shampoo.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

found this little clip of the Pens-Caps playoff series in 95.

sgm pay attention. That guy who is now a hockey sportscaster named Keith Jones used to at one time play hockey himself.

This clip has Jonesy giving Ulfie a little xtra xtra. And then getting clobbered behind the play himself. And a great butt-end to the face of Francois Leroux by our own Dave Poulin. He must've honed that move as a Flyer under Keenan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ueYJSYJPas&feature=related

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"sgm pay attention."

Awwwww, cstanton1 you are so adorable.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton1

The comparison is between Asham and King. Compare them to each other. That is what is relevant.

Fehr is a much better player than Asham it is an absolute joke that you try to say otherwise.
------

Fehr for all intents is a 2nd line player. I don't consider him one of the Caps' true bottom 6ers. Flash played on our 3rd line last yr as well in stretches and he's not part of this debate.

I'm talking about Brashear, Bradley, Laing, BGordo, Steckel, Chimera etc. True bottom 6 guys.

You're speaking out your blowhole again. King has proven zilcho at any level of hockey except that he can fight and hit. You can't get around that fact. Asham has proven he can be a regular NHL player after having much more success than King did either as a junior player or an AHL player. So lets talk about that shall we.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton1

King has been a regular when healthy. He is healthy now and has as much chance getting injured as any other player(maybe a little more because of his style of play).

Watch extensive tape of both and come back to discuss. If you still have the same viewpoint then I would like to hear your opinions.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton1

King has been a regular when healthy.
---------

you know why he's been a regular? its because the Blues really like that sort of player and they believe in giving him every chance. Why do you think Colton Orr's ice time under Tortorella was negligible and suddenly as a Leaf he's getting to play on the 3rd line? Players' ice times are reflective of their coach and GM's like or dislike or a particular style of play. PEriod.

How many teams do you think would've played George Parros, Brad May, and Shawn Thornton in the same game same line in the Stanley Cup playoffs? That was a reflection of Randy Carlyle and Brian Burke being of the same mindset. There are players who get different ice time on different teams. And a player who gets more ice time isn't necessarily better than his counterpart on another team. He's just lucky to be in a situation where his coach and GM find his style of play to be valuable. In many other lineups, DJK would not be a 'regular' as you put it.

and please.... i've known about DJK from his first yr in the minors. I follow that type of stuff pretty closely, I don't need to watch any more tape of him. I've seen plenty of clips of King. His hitting, his fighting, his skating. And I've been a fan. But no more a fan of his than dozens of other similar AHL/NHL players over the yrs. And I've been a fan of Asham's since he first got called up to Montreal. He was supposed to be the draft pick that made Habs fans forget about a kid named Terry Ryan who ended up being a bust.

Posted by: cstanton1 | August 23, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

@cstanton1

Instead of watching clips watch game tape.

Posted by: sgm3 | August 23, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Tweak the rules if they need tweaking, dont tweak the rules, i dont really care, but whatever the league settles on as the stipulated rules, the league and officials need to apply them consistentlay and in a uniform fashion during the regular season and the playoffs.

Posted by: coloradocapsfan1 | August 23, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse


@tominsocal

My L.A. friends feel that they have Mitchell all but signed. The GM is very confident they have him.

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | August 24, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

If they really want to increase the number of goals without changing too much just prohibit players from flopping like goalie to block shots. Added benefit would be a reduction in injuries. They would still be allowed to block shots with their sticks, but not with their bodies by diving into shooting lanes.

And before someone goes crazy and jumps on my back for screwing with the game all this would do is let the goalies handle all the shots as they were meant to do originally.

Posted by: ranndino | August 26, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company