Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
1. Players who should be playing in the NHL are those who are skilled enough to play in the NHL. 2. The League, the players, and the coaches should be the ones making this determination.
Why not just crack down hard on unwanted intentional acts to injure?
I call BS. The proof behind such a statement would require extensive study, and cannot be drawn anecdotally from casual observation. I know that this is the well-worn belief, but I suspect it is little more than a myth in reality. In short, I am highly sceptical that the presence of a goon on the ice has little impact at all on the behaviour and conduct of opposing team members. Remove them from the game, and I expect that the impact on the "game of chess" would be completely negligible.
I have been pretty clear in each of my posts: If he can't play hockey at an NHL level, then he has no business on the ice in a NHL game.
No, they are here to stay so long as the League insists on promoting and sustaining the culture that provides for their presence. As soon as there is a will to get rid of enforcers, they will be gone.
Fair enough (although, ancient Greek is not my strongest suit).
|
I will ask you this about the bolded since others have been asked who had the same idea but cant answer...
How?
How do you get rid of any "type" of player? You have to allow teams to sign and draft whomever they like. They are the ones on the hook for the paychecks, not the league or anyone else.
So unless you ban fighting from the game which will never happen at this point, then there must be some way to do it. I cannot fathom what that is.
Jay Feaster was just on Hockey Central and was aksed point blank if there is still a roll for these players in the game and he emphatically stated "yes there is".