DG's Quick Hits- March 4, 2003 Edition

I know…it’s been awhile; but I’ve been busy with schoolwork so I haven’t had time for articles lately. Rest assured, though, that I’m still alive and well, though excuse me if I get a few details wrong…I’ve been out of the loop for a while.

Anyway, this week’s hits:

No “sure bets” on Deadline Day

Alfredsson defers cheques…and warms hearts

On the radar screen: Sergei and Anna, the Nashville Predators and their season ticket base, Lost Causes, Hull, the NHL and losing, and a lot moreNO “SURE BETS” ON DEADLINE DAY

As the Toronto Star’s Damien Cox recently outlined, this year’s trading deadline could be the most unpredictable in years. With so few teams containing “valuable assets” gone from the playoff chase, who gets dealt on Deadline Day will be almost directly linked to their club’s performance. A team like the Los Angeles Kings, for example, could turn into buyers from sellers should they emerge able to catch the Edmonton Oilers for the final playoff berth and vice-versa should they stumble by week’s end.

It’s a fun little thought, all this madness, but it’s not really that unexpected. With NHL salaries rising and the amount of “wealthy” teams dwindling, the valuable players would eventually get lumped on only a few good teams over the years, meaning the bad, “poor” teams have virtually nothing left. Now, I know we’re not at that point completely yet, but we’re getting there, and all I have to ask is: do we want to get there?

ALFREDSSON DEFERS CHEQUES…AND WARMS HEARTS

The Ottawa Senators breathed a sigh of relief when captain Daniel Alfredsson announced he’s deferring part of his salary so the Senators can aquire a player for their Stanley Cup push. His agent says he really wants to win the Cup, but really didn’t say much else.

This reminds me of when Markus Naslund did (virtually) the same for the Vancouver Canucks, stating he’d play for less just to remain in a city he loved. I personally think it’s nice that we have a least a few loyal superstars who think about their team instead of their paycheque, and, as I stated before, if the Canucks were not in a position to win the Cup, I’d want Ottawa to win. Kindness like that has to be rewarded.

ON THE RADAR SCREEN
Sergei Fedorov admits that he was once married to Anna Kournikova and that he’s now depressed that they’re split. Okay, I know he’s got a very good reason (breakups are always hard), but I bet there would be millions of guys who’d at least like to say that they once dated Kournikova…Maybe it was naive of me to assume that the Nashville Predators wouldn’t be making the playoffs and would be paying back their fans for their ticket increase because of it. Then again, this is Nashville, so anything’s possible…I was hoping the Montreal Canadiens would be able to get back into the playoffs easily this year. A franchise that storied shouldn’t be fighting for a berth…This just in: the San Jose Sharks are a lost cause. Okay, so you already knew that, but now it’s official…Speaking of lost causes, it actually looks like the New York Rangers could make the playoffs. Should I hold my breath or should I give up hope because it’s the Rangers, who somehow manage to screw up anything no matter what…I know it’s old, but one of Brett Hull’s “10 Ways To Fix Hockey” was eliminating the OT Loss rule. I know the guy sometimes goes overboard, but Hull can be right dead-on and he’s right here. You shouldn’t be rewarded for LOSING. Then again, the NHL’s been rewarded for losing for years, so I guess the rule DOES make sense…That comment by Mike Knuble about the Boston Bruins’ decline back in November is really coming back to haunt them now. I say we don’t fire Robbie Ftorek but fire Knuble for being so inconfident…The Hockey News’ “Stat Of The Day”: the Florida Panthers’ unbeaten record when holding a lead. That’s impressive. Really. The hard part for the Panthers, though, is actually getting that lead…Finally, the ESPN readers voted Canucks’ General Manager Brian Burke as the best GM in the NHL. Maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on him now- then again, I’m holing my opinions until the Canucks actually do something in the playoffs.

-DG


8 Responses to DG's Quick Hits- March 4, 2003 Edition

  1. keon says:

    First, who cares about Federov and Anna…really? Second, Brett Hull is absolutely right. Take away that supid OT loss point. Some other changes I would make are:

    a) Move the nets back.

    b) No red-line

    c) 2 minute minors for fighting…THAT’S IT!

    d) penalties don’t end on a goal

    e) OT = 1, 20 minute period of 4×4, THEN a shootout

    Here’s a thought, what about arching the bluelines, you know…make them about 5 feet further out at the centre? it’s just a thought…

    I hope the trade deadline is better this year, than the past couple of years. Law of averages says we are in for a good blockbuster one of these days. Well that’s my take on things

    CHEERS!

    MJ

  2. aaron says:

    OT is a hell of a lot more exicting w/ the “stupid OTL point”. Hey, that gives me an idea. Why not bonus points in the standings for scoring a lot of goals? Would never go over, but it would open the game up.

    Players are never going to agree on another 20 minutes OT period. Most teams play about 20 OT games a season, so that would be so much additional ice time. They’d never even consider agreeing to that.

    Arching the blue lines? What the hell would that accomplish? Asides from creating about 15 muffed off sides calls a game?

  3. swedishvoice says:

    Ok her’s a thougt taken from our Swedish system.

    No redline offside, the game gets bigger and faster, the passing game gets more relevant and the game getts alot mor fun to whatch.

    And for the OT loss. her’s how it works in Sweden. A win in ordenary time is 3points, a overtime win is 2points, a overtime loss is 1point (if the game is not setled after one 5min overtime 4on4 the game goes in to a (suddendeath) shoutout.

  4. NYIchooch75 says:

    Can’t have a shootout because teams like Nashville, Columbus, even Minnesota, who don’t have a Jagr, Bure, Kovalev, Forsberg type would be at a disadvantage. These are teams who were/are close to a gaining a playoff berth.

    I agree, move the nets back. Too much of the game is played behind the nets. Hell, Gretzky’s office was back there without the extra 2 feet.

    Get rid of the two line pass. Dumb rule. You’re talking about an an extra few feet and it’s called at least 10 times a game. Yet, if you flip the puck in the air and it goes across all 3 lines, play is allowed to continue.

    Offsides, go back to the old way. Too many times the flow of the games is slowed down because of that whistle.

  5. maynard says:

    these are some of the worst ideas ever, first of all if you had a 20 minute OT period, and the team had to play the next night against a team that didnt play, there would be a tremendous unfair advantage. these guys play too many games as it is. Moving the nets back does nothing, and 2 minutes for fighting is irrevelant, who cares if your goon has to sit for 5 minutes. Curving the blue lines would just create more off sides so thats out, besides i dont see the point of doing it to begin with. And the other ideas here are generic and have been thrown around by everyone. we all know getting rid of the red line would make a better game.

  6. DG says:

    Interesting ideas, though personally I prefer what Brett Hull said- after sixty minutes, the game is over, tied or not. You don’t need overtime unless you need to determine a winner- like in the playoffs- so to have it in the regular season seems pointless. Also, as Hull said, with the current set-up, teams just wait for overtime just to ensure they’ll get something out of the night, making the last few minutes of the game pointless because the teams are playing cautiously. It goes against what the National Hockey League wanted all along- to end catious play in desperate moments like OT- because it basically just moves that period to the end of the third. Also, as Bill Chadwick once said, “OT just allows a stronger team more time to beat a resilient weaker team”, thus weakening parity.

    Above all else, though, if you lose, you lose. You shouldn’t be rewarded for it because you don’t deserve it. No team should be rewarded for failure.

    RealityCheck

  7. aaron says:

    He’s just leaving out the important part of moving the nets back. You’d then broaden the neutral zone so there’s more room there. Several players have suggested it as a way to speed the game up. It used to be that way, but they changed it sometime in the early nineties.

  8. Jejunum says:

    A shootout would also affect a goalies numbers too much, if he got scored on 5 times in a shootout his save % would be screwed

Leave a Reply