http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/10073298/vancouver-canucks-alexander-burrows-breaks-jaw-month
While I have a smile on my face, it certainly bites for Burrows.
December General NHL News
- Thread starter pedro1918
- Start date
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/10073298/vancouver-canucks-alexander-burrows-breaks-jaw-month
While I have a smile on my face, it certainly bites for Burrows.
Henrik Lundqvist has signed an extension with the Rangers. 7-years, $8.5 AAV.
A lot of coin for his age 32-39 seasons, though goalies tend to age well.
A lot of coin for his age 32-39 seasons, though goalies tend to age well.
cshea said:
That Rask deal is looking better and better with this deal, and the likely future of the Cap after next year when the Rogers money kicks in.
Tough to argue against the Rangers giving him that deal given their current situation. They'll compliance Richards in the summer to make room for a bevy of new deals:
RFA: Brassard, Kreider, Del Zotto, Zuccarello, Falk, Moore
UFA: Callahan, Girardi, Boyle, Pyatt, Strålman
Powe and Asham will also be off the cap.
Easier - assuming a Richards compliance buyout, here's their roster for next season:
Nash - Stepan - Hagelin
- -
- - Miller
- - Dorsett
McDonagh - Staal
-
McIlrath?
Lundqvist
Talbot
$34.1m cap space committed to the above - assuming a ~$68m cap, they're halfway there with 12 spots to fill. Next summer should be even more interesting than this past year's.
RFA: Brassard, Kreider, Del Zotto, Zuccarello, Falk, Moore
UFA: Callahan, Girardi, Boyle, Pyatt, Strålman
Powe and Asham will also be off the cap.
Easier - assuming a Richards compliance buyout, here's their roster for next season:
Nash - Stepan - Hagelin
- -
- - Miller
- - Dorsett
McDonagh - Staal
-
McIlrath?
Lundqvist
Talbot
$34.1m cap space committed to the above - assuming a ~$68m cap, they're halfway there with 12 spots to fill. Next summer should be even more interesting than this past year's.
PedroSpecialK said:
I can't remember where I heard it, so take it with the whole salt shaker, but I did hear someone mention that next year's cap may start with a 7.
I thought I'd throw this in here, since I wasn't sure it warranted its own thread. I barely know anything about Hockey, but is this goalie back-to-back effect a known thing?
Well... yes, it's one of those common sense things that most teams do barring extenuating circumstances, e.g. the young Marty Brodeur example. But I hadn't seen it quantified, so that's pretty neat.
"While looking down directly at Marchand Neil turns his skates and extends his left leg ensuring that contact is made with Marchand's head."
But Marchand came back and Neil was last suspended >18 months ago so no biggie. Only 5 games.
But Marchand came back and Neil was last suspended >18 months ago so no biggie. Only 5 games.
They may have deemed it legal from an additional discipline stand point, but I still think the Loui hit was 100% interference. Loui never touched the puck.
What I found interesting in that replay was Orpik was clearly playing tough guy with Campbell when Thornton came in and did his damage.
And yes, Erickson did barely touch the puck.
And yes, Erickson did barely touch the puck.
I was expecting less than 5 games for Neal. I thought he deserved more, but didn't think he'd get that much. It probably ensures Thornton will get more than I thought, with which I might not have a problem.
I thought it was late but it was close and the puck does hit Loui's stick. Also I personally don't like those "greenlight" borderline hits but I realize that this is my issue compounded by the fact that my favorite player is Patrice Bergeron and I constantly worry that he is one "late/close/clean" hit away from ending up like Marc Savard or Eric Lindros.ForceAtHome said:
Also nothing excuses the Thornton attack. I am a veteran homer for the Bruins but that is not play, it's assault, from the slewfoot to the punch. I'm glad Thornton is sorry and that Orpik seems to be OK and I don't care. I hope Thornton gets 10 games minimum in the hopes that this makes the next guy think about what he's going to do before he does it.
Toe Nash said:
This is Lundqvist's last deal in all likelihood. Rask will be what, 34, when his current deal ends? So he'd be in line to get another. Makes sense that Lundqvist's money would be higher.
<iframe src="http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/embed?playlist=172993" frameborder="0" width="640" height="395"></iframe>
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=172993&catid=35
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=172993&catid=35
My issue with the Orpik-Loui thing was 1, he left his feet, and 2, his left shoulder/arm pretty clearly connects with Eriksson's head. I didn't really have an issue with the lateness since the puck is there and everybody (Orpik, Eriksson, puck) all kind of arrived together. And I know it doesn't matter because of the 18 month thing (does that make Matt Cooke officially a "clean" player now?) but Orpik certainly has a history. You could ask Erik Cole about him, but he probably doesn't remember.
MoGator71 said:
I don't think Orpik left his feet until after contact with Eriksson. Nothing wrong with that -- it's natural.
I don't think he launched (his feet only left the ice after the hit) but I do think he had his arm up. There's one angle where it looks like he caught some shoulder before making contact with Loui's head. I think those hits should be penalized but get that the rule isn't written that way right now.
It's awful, and there can be no place for it in the game, but in all honesty, I'm still trying to figure out how Orpik got injured. The slew foot is almost more offensive than two short (gloved) jabs to the head. Neal changing his path and extending his knee to a prone Marchand's head reveals far more intent to injure than this does. He should have gotten more than a phone hearing in my opinion. Thornton was incensed that Orpik wasn't accountable for causing a second concussion to a highly skilled, classy player—with a borderline hit that probably looked much more savage in real time than it does to some of us on replay. If that's how Thornton saw things, I can understand how he went a bit mental. I don't absolve his actions, I'm just saying, it's clear to me why he snapped. Neal's hit is garden variety douche-baggery, and by that I mean—slightly more unprovoked and thuggish. Minor postscript but Dupuis' slash of Kelly is getting no play at all. I don't think Kelly thought it was at all accidental—hence the three crosschecks to the back of Dupuis. When I want to keep a puck in at the blue line with a backhand, something I do a lot of as a D-Man, I generally keep my stick on the ice rather than at ankle level. And I don't have a fraction of the stick control these guys do.
Neal, Shanabanned for five games - maximum for a phone hearing.
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=172993&catid=35
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=172993&catid=35
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/09/hit-by-leafs-phaneuf-could-be-costlyMoGator71 said:
Looks like Phaneuf could be seeing some discipline, too.
catomatic said:
That's where I'm at, too. Seeing the replay again, I also don't think the "slew foot" was really that bad, since Thornton basically supported his weight and feathered him down to the ice. I think it's more the idea of dragging someone down to the ice and wailing on them that's the most offensive, but watching the quick forearm, and the subsequent half-hearted punch, I have no idea how the guy left the ice on a stretcher. It looked like the forearm nicked the tip of his nose, and that was it, but maybe there's just no good angle. Again, though, the idea of taking someone to the ice and going about it that way means he's going to deserve a stiff punishment. As I mentioned in the gamethread, though, they could go through that sequence a 1,000 times and not have it end the way it did. If Orpik gets right up, Thornton may have ended up with a double minor at worse.
I think the stiff punishment to Neal is the preamble to a huge suspension, maybe 20-25 games. I don't agree with it, but I'd understand it. The league has to protect itself, although the league is also partially to blame by its wanton punishment standards.
I'm already excited to see who the player(s) are who get grossly overpaid leading to the next lockout. The allure of scoring from Vanek? An aging Thornton/Marleau? A relatively young Stastny for a team in need of a long term center? Ryan Miller? Dion Phaneuf?
I foresee Phaneuf and Vanek hitting the jackpot. Statsny, assuming he reaches, will have one of the highest youth to talent ratios among UFAs you'll see these days.
I foresee Phaneuf and Vanek hitting the jackpot. Statsny, assuming he reaches, will have one of the highest youth to talent ratios among UFAs you'll see these days.
If you think the forearm at 2:12 is "nicking the top of Orpik's nose" I think you might need to watch again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuVq-TZ7AJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuVq-TZ7AJM
And if, at the same time, Marchand was knocked out cold and stretchered away, the shoe would definitely be on the other foot. What Neal did was really ugly—there's just no way around it. He changes his path to arc right into him. It's as ugly as trying to hit a limping dog in in the road. Five isn't enough if Thornton is going to get 20 or something. There's just not that big a disparity—especially if, as someone alleged somewhere, Orpik, though no fault of his own, has a bit of a glass jaw.Ed Hillel said:
Have a 6'2 220 pound tough guy pin you down in a UFC mount position and hit you flush in the face with a hard elbow/forearm pad and see if you don't get knocked unconscious. That Orpik is being blamed for "having a glass jaw" (which is a reach) when he was hit in the manner he is is victim-blaming at its finest. You don't see me saying Marchand should have moved his head out of the way or some bullshit. Both acts were disgusting.
Please note, though, that A) I said, "as someone alleged" when referring to the "glass-jaw", and B) the whole scenario was basically hypothetical—imagining the radically different assignment of blame in a case where Orpik gets up and Marchand stays down—this was all in the realm of the hypothetical.Greg29fan said:
If you're upset at the glass jaw moniker, (and I hate blaming the victim as much as anybody), there's a few folks out there on the internet (Pro Hockey Talk, HF Boards etc.}, who state this as being true. I am not one of them. I was adding it to the mix given the unchecked demonization of Thornton. See, I think, most observers of the game wouldn't be surprised at all if, based on the appearance of those hits, Marchand would be the one who stayed down and Orpik the one getting up. Obviously that's not what happened, but I think it easily could have if Thornton hadn't hit some sweet spot and Neal had. Neal got off light, though. Dupuis got no penalty, nor did Orpik. The righteous rage oughtn't belong to only one team here, especially if the respective reputations of those involved are considered. Thornton's was pretty sterling for someone who plies the trade he does. Erik Cole and Derek Stepan probably wouldn't be Orpik's best character witnesses in defending the hit on Loui—which Julien, who's commendably level-headed about such things, thinks was a dirty one.
As I was taught many years ago in torts (not Tortorella) class, you take your victim as they are, eggshell skulls and all. So while I have sympathy to Thornton's plight, given his long and clean history and remorse, you can't really use this is a defense.
Thought it was interesting that in last night's Pens-Jackets game someone threw a pretty good (totally legal with no injury) hit on Niskanen, was challenged, fought, and nothing happened after that. I wonder if the same thing had happened if in an alternate world Orpik had accepted Thornton's invitation.
I think Brooks' reputation in the league is that he's a hard hitter, but a fair hitter, outside of the Cole hit (which was many years ago, but was still not the most kosher hit I've ever seen) and the Stepan hit, which he suffered no supplemental discipline for. He doesn't believe in fighting, other guys obviously do.
I don't think, and obviously he didn't think, he was under any obligation to fight for a hard, but legal, hit on Eriksson, especially an enforcer like Thornton.
I don't think, and obviously he didn't think, he was under any obligation to fight for a hard, but legal, hit on Eriksson, especially an enforcer like Thornton.
The Napkin said:
Exactly.
While I was watching Orpik being carted off in the stretcher I was thinking about the Behind the B episode where they are interviewing Boychuk about the Dallas game where he laid a big check on Erik Cole and then immediately dropped the gloves and tackled Vernon Fiddler who was coming to challenge Boychuk. Boychuk just laughed it off saying he knew someone would come after him for the hit (which was way cleaner than the Orpik one BTW).
The juxtaposition between the two events, and their end results, is night and day. (As an aside, how amazing is it that no one from Pittsburgh ever stepped in to protect Orpik, especially after Thornton challenged him the first time? Odd that isn't getting more commentary).
http://video.bruins.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=482747
Wait, Orpik has zero fights in 5 years?
I've never been real big on the whole "he needs to answer the bell" argument about guys delivering big hits. Just because you destroy a guy with a hit doesn't mean it was dirty, and I can't stand seeing guys challenged/jumped for delivering a clean check. But if you're going to dish out borderline dirty hits (and Orpik does - most guys who hit alot will eventually have some questionable ones at least) you kinda have to be willing to fight.
Even Matt Cooke was willing to fight...
I've never been real big on the whole "he needs to answer the bell" argument about guys delivering big hits. Just because you destroy a guy with a hit doesn't mean it was dirty, and I can't stand seeing guys challenged/jumped for delivering a clean check. But if you're going to dish out borderline dirty hits (and Orpik does - most guys who hit alot will eventually have some questionable ones at least) you kinda have to be willing to fight.
Even Matt Cooke was willing to fight...