Last week, as the NHL tries to get back on a positive message after months of troubling stories, there was the Pittsburgh-Washington collision (sadly undercut by the Arron Asham controversy) and Saturday's L.A.-Philly tilt which featured the return of Mike Richards to the City of Brotherly Love.
Next week, you'll have a home-and-home with the Bruins and Canadiens, the first game between the two clubs in which both Zdeno Chara and Max Pacioretty will be involved since the infamous stanchion incident last winter.
The conference schedule being what it is, we'll have to wait until January to see a game between the two Stanley Cup finalists, Boston and Vancouver. Wonder who'll be playing goal for the Canucks by then?
Meanwhile, there's a compelling early season matchup Monday in Toronto between two of the league's up-and-coming young teams. Both the Maple Leafs and Colorado Avalanche are off to strong starts after missing the playoffs last year, and what's intriguing is that these are two clubs that are emphasizing different areas as they try to build themselves into winners.
The Avs, along with Edmonton and the Islanders, boast one of the more impressive groups of young forwards in the league, with two 20-year-olds, Matt Duchene and Ryan O'Reilly, along with 18-year-old Gabriel Landeskog, the second pick from last June's draft who's taking a regular shift for Joe Sacco's team early this season.
Colorado also has 23-year-old Peter Mueller, the 8th pick from the 2006 draft, although he has missed the last two games, possibly with recurring concussion symptoms. Paul Stastny, meanwhile, is only 25 years old. That's a pretty promising group of attackers.
The Leafs, meanwhile, boast one of the more promising defence corps in the league, with Dion Phaneuf (26 years old), Luke Schenn (21), Carl Gunnarson (24), Cody Franson (24) and Jake Gardiner (21), with Keith Aulie (21) and Jesse Blacker (20) in the minors.
To get younger and stronger on the blueline, the Avs traded a chunk of talent last season to St. Louis to get former first overall pick Erik Johnson, the kind of kingpin on defence they believed they would not otherwise be able to acquire. The Leafs, meanwhile, tried to do the same on offence three seasons ago by dealing first round picks to get Phil Kessel, the kind of offensive star Brian Burke felt would otherwise be impossible to get.
Both were risky deals, controversial ones.
Both clubs have pinned their hopes on a young goalie this season, Semyon Varlamov in Denver and James Reimer in Toronto. Varlamov has more experience, but each is out to prove they have the stuff to be a No. 1 goalier in the league.
So there are contrasts and similarities. The Leafs would love to have Colorado's young gunners up front, the Avs would dearly embrace the blueline talent the Leafs have assembled.
In Montreal Saturday night, the Avs looked prolific on the attack and not so sturdy on defence, possibly the product of playing their fourth game in six nights. The very well rested Leafs are just about to start getting into the meat of their schedule with three games in four nights.
An intriguing matchup for the third week of the season.
Arron Asham won't have to pay for being "classless."
That was his own description of his actions after a fight against Jay Beagle of the Washington Capitals on Thursday night. A joint decision by NHL executives Brendan Shanahan and Colin Campbell today, however, ruled that Asham will not face additional league sanction, either a fine or suspension.
The league is expected to issue a statement later today and warn other players that similar pantomine antics as those delivered by Asham won't be tolerated in the future. Two players, James Wisniewski and Nick Boynton, were suspended by Campbell last season for inappropriate gestures, and Trevor Gillies of the New York Islanders was suspended at least partially for standing over Eric Tangradi of Pittsburgh and taunting him after knocking Tangradi to the ice with an illegal head shot.
Apparently, however, Shanahan and Campbell have decided not to sanction Asham because players have not been specifically warned about celebratory post-fight gestures.
So another black eye for the NHL goes unpunished. That's just the way this league rolls.
Asham made the rather unfortunate decision to mock Beagle after leaving Beagle unconcious on the ice after a fight. Rather than just skate to the penalty box, Asham chose to play to the delight of the Pittsburgh fans with a couple of gestures, including one that mimicked Beagle going to sleep.
Given that Beagle was face down in his own blood at the time, it was a terribly offensive gesture by Asham, one he quickly admitted after the game was "classless."
On one hand, it was reminiscent of Tie Domi pretending to put on a championship belt after winning a hockey fight or other silly gestures. On the other hand, given that Beagle was injured, it was truly regrettable, particularly after all the unfortunate incidents the game has had to endure in the past six months.
Last year, Campbell suspended Boynton one game for a pre-season throat-slashing gesture, then banned Wisniewski, then of the New York Islanders, for a lewd gesture towards Avery.
Did Asham's misdemeanor fall into the same category as Boynton's or Wisniewski's? Should it have?
Something to chew on, even for Leaf fans wondering who will be coming out of the lineup against Calgary on Saturday to make way for Cody Franson and when, oh when, Tim Connolly will be back from what most have concluded is a shoulder injury (given the fact the NHL embraces this silly lower body/upper body injury reporting jargon, feel free to speculate all you want about injuries.)
This is the first week of this season's hockey mailbag. Start sending in your questions on just about any subject that tickles your fancy, and I'll do my best to get to any or all of 'em.
Q: Damien. I've watched and heard your thoughts on hockey for the last 15 years. I have also agreed with you on most of your positions. I can't however agree that Don Cherry's recent thoughts with regards to violence and hits to the head should be pushed aside. Children from the age of 4 to 14 should not be subjected to stupidity. It has to end soon.
No hits to the head, no hits from behind.
Somebody needs to figure it out before a child gets killed.
Gary O'Neill, Toronto
A: I think Hockey Canada is the body that exerts far more control on these issues than Cherry, quite frankly, and with respect to head shots, Hockey Canada has adopted a zero tolerance policy that was overdue. It was sad to watch Cherry lament the loss of concussive head shots last week on Coach's Corner, but with respect to hits from behind, he's been a pretty strong proponent of the stop sign program, even advocating that the stop sign be moved to the back of the helmet from the back of the shoulders.
In general, I just don't see Cherry and his vaudeville show has a lot of impact on kids. They just kind of laugh at the comedy. It's adults you have to wonder about. They're almost always the ones that cause trouble in minor hockey.
Q: Clearly, Don Cherry has a business conflict of interest in promoting violence in hockey. Since 1989, Don Cherry and his son have made a small fortune in the production of Rock'em Sock'em vidoes, which cash in on and glorifiy the worst of hockey violence and fighting.
Mark Thomas, Toronto
A: I agree with you that it's a conflict. On the other hand, it's not like anyone doesn't know about it. Cherry's commercial interests are pretty much above board, and most intelligent people understand his constant pandering to the more violent aspects of the game is, to some extent, him feathering his own nest.
Cherry makes money off the bloodier parts of the game. I think we all know that, and it doesn't bother me. I mean, he honestly loves the scraps and the violence and the goons. It's not like he's making it up to make money.
Stu Grimson, now, may feel differently. Called a "hypocrite" and a "puke" by Cherry last week for reasons that still mystify, Grimson noted quite correctly in a radio interview this week that Cherry had no problem featuring him in his hockey videos when he was playing and fighting, but has now thrown him under the bus now that there's no more money to be made highlighting the exploits of "The Grim Reaper."
Q: Hi Damien. How long until the NHL starts pulling back on Shanahan? Considering there are 5-10 teams bleeding red ink, and they still pay the salary of a suspended player (into the fund) plus have to pay a call-up replacement! You have to think it could cause issues.(and conspiracy theories if the optics are that Phoenix and Florida players seem to get off easier than Leaf or Ranger players)
Ridley Wetton, Woodstock
A: I think we're going to have to sit and watch this play out. As noted, there is more on Shanahan's docket today. It's been argued that by being tough early, he has set a tone that has persuaded players to stay away from incidents that might get them suspended. We'll see.
As far as the cost to teams, I think you could argue that the cost of players injured by players who are subsequently suspended is much higher. Joe Thornton got two games, but the Blues missed David Perron for an entire year, for example. Finally, with respect to conspiracy theories, I don't really buy any of them and neither should you.
Q: Hi Damien. I am wondering if you can clarify what the NHL rule is on a player who is suspended. Can a team call up another player to replace the suspended player or does the team have to carry on with that player on their active roster. My fantasy league is expecting more and longer suspensions with Sheriff Shanahan in Town.
Richard Latendresse, Brampton
A: The player stays on the 23-man active roster. Clarke MacArthur, for instance, has been on the Leafs' active roster for the first two games of the season.
Q: Hi Damien. What is your opinion on Sean Avery? I used to have a pretty low opinion of him, but that has changed a bit over time. If he mellowed out a bit, and stopped make stupid decisions that penalized his team, could he be an effective player worth taking a chance on? He can score goals, and if he focused on it, could be a 20 goal scorer.
I guess with (Dion) Phaneuf on the Leafs, (Brian) Burke would never go after Avery, but if that obstacle were removed, could Avery be a useful (if risky) piece for the Leafs?
Arthur Bailey, Red Lake
A: For starters, no, the Leafs wouldn't be an option, and really, I don't get a sense Avery is good enough to help any team any more, but we'll see. There's no chance he can be a 20-goal scorer (he never was, not once topping 15 in the NHL) and he brings so much baggage and controversy with him (plus a significant cap hit) that he has to be very effective to make it worthwhile to have him around. I don't know Avery except as a hockey player, and I've always found his act to be pretty despicable. Whether he's mellowed, who knows? I thought his stance on gay marriage was useful and noteworthy, but that has nothing to do with the sport and doesn't do much, at least in my mind, to rehabilitate his tarnished public image.
Q: Now let me see. (Keith) Aulie who turned around Phaneuf’s season last year gets cut and Franson who has been completely marginal and (Mike) Komisarek who has been really really marginal stay! You have (John-Michael) Liles and (Jake) Gardiner who can rush the puck. (Darryl) Boyce who is a gritty grinder and (Colton) Orr stays? (Phillipe) Dupuis who falls at will stays! Monster has been marginal and (Ben) Scrivens goes! (Joey) Crabb goes, (Jay) Rosehill stays! AMAZING, Simply Amazing! I wonder who played in those last 30 games last year? Go Leafs Go! Wow!
J Man, Markham
A: I see your point, although I disagree with your assessment that Aulie "turned around" Phaneuf's season. Look, there are always roster choices to be made, and the fact is that Aulie had a poor training camp and could be sent to the minors without requiring waivers, which made it easy. Contracts - one-ways versus two-ways - and player status determine many of these moves. That's the way of the business. You don't want to have to put a guy on waivers and possibly pay him NHL money to play in the minors unless you really have to. And let's be honest. None of these players you mention are core players, and that's the life of being a support NHLer.
Ron Wilson's inability to comprehend he's no longer coaching in San Jose - or Washington, or Anaheim for that matter - continues to confound.
Specifically, after three full seasons with the Leafs, Wilson is still unable to get his head around the fact that Toronto is a huge hockey media market compared to the others in which he once coached, and a market in which small stories can blow up into big ones if not managed effectively. Whether Wilson wants to acknowledge it or not, being able to capably steer the team through media-infested waters is a big part of being the head coach in Toronto.
A perfect example came Wednesday when it was announced by both Wilson and defenceman Cody Franson that Franson would make his Leaf debut on Saturday against Calgary. By doing it that way, what was a one-day story will now turn into a four-day story as the Leaf Nation chews on the issue of putting Franson in the lineup after he was acquired from Nashville during the summer.
The Leafs are still 2-0, and most coaches wouldn't change a winning lineup. Moreover, as big or bigger than Franson's insertion into the Leaf lineup will be the identity of the player that comes out - Wilson didn't say - and that will now become the big debating point until Saturday's game, and probably after.
(ED. NOTE: After a day of reading people ranting and raving about things that weren't even written in this blog, let's set a few things straight. First, I'm a columnist; my job is to write opinion. You can agree or disagree, whatever turns your crank. Second, if you don't understand that in 2011 a big part of any Leaf head coach's job is to deal with the media, you're so out of it I can't help you. Third, the media is the instrument through which fans glean some, if not the majority, of their information. The more they hide, the less you know, and that's true whether you're talking about the Leafs or City Hall. The entire point of this piece was to describe how Wilson turned a small story into a big one. It's what is being talked about everywhere. It didn't have to happen that way. Again, if you can't understand that rather basic point, I really can't help you.)
Expect many to demand that Mike Komisarek be the Leaf taken out. Komisarek is this year's designated whipping boy - he was last year as well - not for his play, really, but for the fact his play doesn't match his salary. It could be Komisarek, and that's probably the sensible move, given that Franson is a right-handed shooting defenceman accustomed to playing the right side, but sending Komisarek to the press box for the first time in his Leaf career would be a huge blow to the veteran's pride.
Now, Komisarek gets to face three days of questioning about it, to which he'll probably have to throw his arms in the air and say, "I have no idea. Ask the coach."
It could also be rookie Jake Gardiner, who had the least to do with Saturday's near-collapse against Ottawa as any Leaf blueliner. Moreover, he plays the left side, which is a bad fit for Franson, or Komisarek, for that matter. If you're going to remove Gardiner, you'd be better off putting Keith Aulie, currently with the Marlies, into the lineup.
Heck, based on Saturday, you could give Luke Schenn the night off. Schenn, for a player now endowed with a big contract and one supposed to be a shut-down, stay-at-home type, was running around as much as anyone against the Senators, including inadvisedly leaving his feet several times in wild attempts to block shots rather than being a steadying influence.
But Schenn's not coming out. He's a golden boy. Wilson might say, as he did on Wednesday, that he's trying to "eliminate that sense of entitlement outside of the room,” but he's the coach who insisted on having Schenn in the NHL as an 18-year-old and preferring to hold him to a different standard than other older defencemen.
No idea, by the way, what the added bit "outside of the room" might mean. Is Wilson saying it's the media who believes there's a sense of entitlement among Leaf players? Or is it his players who feel entitled to play even when they don't deserve to?
So, given the headlines about the "disgruntled" Franson that were on the web by late Wednesday afternoon, this is now the biggest story in Leaf-land, with several more days of speculation and analysis still to come. It may be silly, but the identity of the fifth or sixth defenceman in Toronto is a bigger hockey story across the country that who's on the first line in Dallas, or Nashville or Long Island. That's just the way it is, like who's batting ninth for the Yankees and the identity of the fifth starter.
Again, in the case of Franson, this is a coach allowing a story, one that wouldn't receive nearly the play in many markets around the NHL, to become needlessly significant. Carolina was able to send first round pick Ryan Murphy back to junior on Wednesday without it becoming a big deal. That would have been impossible in Toronto, where everything's a big deal. But Wilson doesn't seem to get that.
All he had to do to effectively work this story was tell Franson on Friday night that he was playing, which would have probably become evident on Saturday in the morning skate, and then it would have had barely a day to percolate. Given the nature of the weekend sports news cycle, Sunday wouldn't have included much coverage of the story and by Monday it would have been superseded by some other story.
Wilson loves to complain about the Toronto media, about the tendency to build mountains out of molehills, about how he can't say anything nice about a player without the media "building a statue" to that player.
To some degree, he's right. But his inability to effectively navigate the Toronto media market was one of the big questions about him when he arrived here, and the Franson story shows he still lacks the skill to both use the media to create creative and useful competition within his team and to manage stories in such a way as to make them less of a distraction and pain-in-the-butt for his team.
Lots of name-calling going on between Don Cherry and a group of former NHL enforcers these days, but not a whole lot being said, at least not much more than the kind of insults and taunts you might hear in a schoolyard.
Now, maybe we shouldn’t expect more. But maybe we should. See, the issues of fighting, concussions and related depression are serious, serious issues, and the way in which these folks are dealing with them is simply trivializing the problem.
Now, for starters, that’s enough with the lawsuit talk. First of all, nobody should publish stories about somebody “threatening” to sue. It’s a story when the papers are filed.
Second, nobody should be suing anybody. Cherry used his bully pulpit to, well, bully Messrs Grimson, Nilan and Thomson, who now feel aggrieved because they don’t like being called mean names. Well, guess what? So have many of us who have had our views distorted by Cherry, who is incapable engage in a constructive, intelligent debate on any subject, let alone fighting. He can show fights, repeatedly talk about how they don’t cover the points any more and wave the flag, and that’s about it.
But those of us who find ourselves the targets of his shots don’t fire back with threats of lawsuits. You fire back by continuing to point out the many holes in Cherry’s arguments, and you never let up, no matter that his main argument on most every subject is that all who disagree with him should shut up and mind their own business because they didn’t play in the AHL during the 1960s.
To be honest, I just don’t see Cherry being very influential anymore. He’s got his devoted constituency, but it’s not growing. He’s been pushing no-touch icing for a decade, for example, and has managed to achieve zero, so how influential, exactly, can he be? He is incredibly popular, which is a different thing entirely, and he knows how to generate headlines to feed his ego, commercial interests and attract viewers to his show, which is why the CBC continues to pander to him.
But he’s not changing anybody’s mind on any subject.
Of Stu Grimson, Jim Thomson and Chris Nilan, they’ve all communicated in various ways their thoughts on fighting, but they need to understand that getting involved with Cherry is just playing his game and distorting any useful message they may have on the subject. State your ideas and opinions, and don’t worry what the CBC bully has to say.
You don’t engage with him. You never hear, say, Ken Dryden mention Cherry’s views. You ignore Cherry, you let him rage against the light as his twisted vision of Canada’s great game slowly, but inexorably, fades into history.
It's become boring, and the sad part is there are so many who think they're being clever.
"Plan the parade" is the line that the truly thick utter at this time of year when the Maple Leafs win a hockey game, or two. As if there's a single person in the City of Toronto or the GTA who believes these Maple Leafs have a shot at winning the Stanley Cup this year or next.
Seems to me the long-suffering hockey fans around here deserve to at least be able to enjoy a victory now and then. Seems to me that since pretty much every hockey prognosticator out there has picked the Leafs to miss post-season play - again - an opening night victory over Montreal is cause for mild optimism without having to apologize.
Happily for Ron Wilson, the Leafs now get a little scheduling break. While he gathers his troops and undoubtedly suggests they might want to get their feet moving a little earlier on Saturday night against Ottawa than they did against the Habs, the Senators are in Detroit, home of the 4-0 Lions and ALCS-bound Tigers, taking on the Red Wings.
The Sens haven't played in eight days, and two games in two nights shouldn't leave them exhausted. Still, you take every edge you can, so the Senators will play and then make the short jaunt from Motown to Toronto while the Leafs sit at home and watch baseball playoffs.
Quite clearly, Saturday night's clash isn't likely to be a great example of the once lively Battle of Ontario. These are two hockey clubs trying to find their way out of the wilderness, and neither is doing it like Edmonton, tearing it all down and finishing 30th for a couple of years to get the best teenagers the world has to offer.
There's been great criticism in Toronto for some of Brian Burke's decisions that are viewed as contradictory to the youth movement he has put in place, such as trading away high first round draft picks. In Ottawa, the process is even more confusing. The Sens will dress a host of recent first round picks like 18-year-old Mika Zibanejad, Jared Cowen, Erik Karlsson, David Rundblad, Brian Lee and Nick Foligno, but also thirtysomethings Daniel Alfredsson, Chris Phillips, Sergei Gonchar, Filip Kuba, Chris Neil, Zenon Konopka and Matt Carkner, as well as both goalies, Craig Anderson and Alex Auld.
The much younger Leafs, by contrast, have two players who are 30 years old, Tim Connolly and John-Michael Liles, and that's it.
So is Ottawa trying to win now, or at least finish much higher in the Eastern Conference? And where do the Sens and GM Bryan Murray stand in their rebuilding project compared to the Leafs? One difference is that while Burke inherited a mess and has spent 2 1/2 years trying to overhaul the roster, Murray, to a large extent, created his own mess, and has been given an opportunity to clean it up.
These are two men, of course, who have been linked before in terms of their managerial expertise. Those who would deny Burke credit for being GM of the Stanley Cup-winning Anaheim Ducks in '07 contend that Murray, who preceded Burke, was the real architect of that team because he drafted Ryan Getzlaf and Corey Perry. It's a silly debate; both men had a hand in it, and nobody takes credit from Peter Chiarelli in Boston because he didn't draft Tim Thomas, David Krejci or Patrice Bergeron.
Still, it links Burke and Murray forever, and now it's a contest between the two veteran GMs to see who can get their team back among the league's playoff teams faster.
Burke appears to have the lead at the moment. Perhaps that perception changes if Zibanejad has an impact right away that Nazem Kadri, drafted in a similar position, has thus far failed to have with the Leafs.
Saturday night's skirmish will offer a little bit of an answer.
The entire off-season plan of the Maple Leafs was to find a way that Tyler Bozak didn't have to centre the No. 1 line and feed Phil Kessel.
But showing what happens to the best laid plans, when the season begins tonight against Montreal Bozak starts again in that very same position. Injuries, or at least an injury to Tim Connolly, has thrust Bozak right back into the No. 1 hole where he was - unfairly - the subject of much criticism last year because he couldn't put up the numbers of a top pivot.
"This year is a big year for me," said Bozak this morning, musing on his 15-goal, 17-assist campaign of a year ago. "Last year was my first full year. This year we'll see where I really stand."
While many fretted about Bozak's offensive numbers, the 25-year-old was far more concerned about his defensive play after going an ugly minus-29 last season.
"Yeah, it did bother me," said Bozak. "It's a weird stat, because you score against a five-man unit. But I've never been a negative in my whole career.
"I do think I'm a good defensive player. I always was. Maybe my confidence got a little low at times last season."
"I want to do a lot better in that category this year. I've learned a lot."
Joffrey Lupul will join Bozak and Kessel, while Mikhail Grabovski will join 30-goal man Nik Kulemin and rookie Matt Frattin on the No. 2 line.
"Play the same way," said Kulemin when asked about his ambitions for this season. "And score a little more."
Matthew Lombardi, with only one pre-season game, will start on the fourth line.
"If he can take more, I'd love to move him up," said head coach Ron Wilson of Lombardi, who missed 11 months with concussion problems. "But even he admits he has a lot of rust on him."
Wilson said he doesn't expect Tim Connolly will return for Saturday's game against Ottawa.
"But if he comes to me and says he's ready, he'll probably be in there," said the Leaf coach.
The moment for which David Steckel is famous - or infamous - is really not his calling card as an NHL player.
That moment, of course, was his collision with Sidney Crosby during last year's Winter Classic that, in combination with another hit a few days later, has derailed Crosby's brilliant career for now because of concussion issues.
Some called it an intentional, dirty play by Steckel. It wasn't. Anybody who knows anything about his career understands that if anything, he has underused his 6-foot-6 frame in terms of physical play throughout his career.
So to be a bruiser is not the reason the Leafs picked up the 29-year-old centre today from New Jersey for a fourth round pick in 2012.
What Steckel can do is take draws as well as anybody in the league, a commodity the Leafs are in short supply of these days. In particular, the left-handed shooting Steckel is useful on draws while penalty killing, and we all know how that facet of the game has been a huge challenge for Ron Wilson's club. Win a few draws while shorthanded and your chances of allowing fewer powerplay goals increases.
Steckel had the best faceoff percentage in the league last year (62.3 per cent), and could be the best draw man the Leafs have had since Yanic Perreault.
"When your team gets competitive, you're looking for small pieces," said Leafs GM Brian Burke tonight. "I'm actually pretty excited about this move. He's been on our radar for 18 months and we finally got him."
Steckel's shortcoming is his skating, and he's not an offensive player, although he was during his collegiate career at Ohio State after being drafted in the first round by the L.A. Kings back in 2001. Unable to nail down an offensive role in the NHL, he reinvented himself as a checker and faceoff specialist.
"I like guys like that," said Burke.
At $1.1 million for this season and next, Steckel is also a little expensive for what many teams want to be paying their third and fourth liners. But the Leafs needs, both up the middle and in the faceoff circle, were significant enough they were willing to pay.
With Tim Connolly ailing, Steckel's presence frees up Tyler Bozak and/or Matthew Lombardi to play higher in the lineup in the home opener on Thursday.
With NHL suspensions being handed out like Hallowe'en candy so far this fall (nine to date) by new hanging judge Brendan Shanahan, there is one question few are asking.
Why don't more players appeal? Or is there even a way for them to appeal?
The NHL Players Association is certainly asking the same question, arguing somebody who gets a $50 traffic ticket has more rights to try and fight it than an NHL player who loses hundreds of thousands of dollars through suspension.
Well, there is a way for NHL players to appeal. Sort of. If, say, James Wisniewski wanted to question the eight-game suspension and loss of more than $536,000 in salary for elbowing Cal Clutterbuck in the head, he could go to the one layer of NHL judicial appeal.
Gary Bettman.
Now, one might wonder how the people who give the suspensions - NHL operations, with input from others, including Bettman - end up essentially being the same people who would review the suspensions. Just guessing, but they'd probably, upon review, think they did a pretty bang-up job the first time.
Fair? Don't think so. But this is the way its always been, which is why NHLers don't appeal. What would be the point? You really think Bettman would look at the decision of Shanahan - his prize appointee - and correct it?
This, of course, is a CBA issue, and one that is receiving intense internal discussion around the NHLPA offices. New union boss Donald Fehr, of course, comes from baseball, where there is an appeal process, albeit one that has become a bit silly; the league suspends a player, and the suspension is always reduced on appeal. But it's a process at least.
Like Colin Campbell before him, Shanahan - currently surrounded by all kinds of media cheerleaders - will soon find this to be an impossible job because its impossible to be consistent. So Brad Boyes gets two pre-season games for a nasty head shot on Joe Colborne, but Clarke MacArthur just one pre-season and two regular season games for a less vicious head hit on Justin Abdelkader? Was one act really decidedly more nasty than the other?
MacArthur took his protest too far. Hitting isn't going to be taken out of the game, and he probably deserved at least a penalty for the hit. But if you were him, you might want to draw the comparison between his hit and the Boyes hit and demand some quite of quasi-judicial satisfaction on appeal.
It's easy to say boo-hoo and these are rich hockey players who need to learn how to mind their manners, etc. But while everyone is trumpeting the new transparency - where was the explanation as to why Eric Nystrom wasn't suspended, by the way? - it must be accompanied by fairness, and part of fairness is the right to appeal to an independent body or individual.
In this case, that can't be Bettman. The PA will push for an independent arbitration process in the next round of CBA talks, but it's believed the NHL has absolutely no interest in altering the current system.
So the boys will have something else to fight about.
Damien Cox, the Star's hockey columnist and associate sports editor, takes turns stirring up trouble and chuckling at the foibles of the sporting world. He'll start with hockey, Canada's ongoing passion play, and stick his nose into a few other games and places where athletes reside. You'll love some of his thoughts, hate others and get a chance to give your two cents on all of them.
TheStar.com
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Toronto Star or www.thestar.com. The Star is not responsible for the content or views expressed on external sites.
Distribution, transmission or republication of any material is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.
Recent Comments