Rangerland Forum Information

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

Also Leedsy, to you and Kusand's point, the other side of the coin is, let's say I agree with you. So you can't base an injury on a couple of days because their could be long lasting effects.

They STILL got the Phillips on Callahan thing wrong. So he got up and skated away. What happens if two games from now Callahan starts feeling woozy and it's traced back to that hit? Like What happened to Staal? Are they retroactively going to suspend Phillips? No?

No matter how you want to slice defending the league for this Hagelin thing, they fucked it up.

[scott03]

I look at Scott as a preventative measure. If the Sens try anything stupid we can have him take care of business without losing someone who's actually useful.

You know, other than whoever he replaces on the active roster for the game.

if they dress scott over mitchell, its no great loss there. besides, what would he most likely see on the ice, 3-3:30 total? not a big deal. but i do think kreider should get a shot tonight on the 3rd line. lets see how good the kid is.

[Display Name]

You all know I call the conspiracy people out regularly for their ridiculousness. That being said, I think ottawa purposefully didn't say anything about Daniel's status until after the suspension, and THAT sets a bad precedent. You base these things on "injuries" and you allow teams to work the system competitively.

First of all, Shanahan said on B&C that he based his decision on the Ottawa team doctors report which said it could be one game or it could be a year, because it was a head injury and there is no way of knowing the seriousness. He then said that he made his decision knowing there was some sort of injury but not worrying about the severity.

I also think people might have misinterpreted what he said about reducing the suspension. He was asked point blank if the suspension gets reduced if Alfredsson plays tonight and he said "thats a possibility" but he sounded like he was referring to Alfredsson playing tonight being a possibility (not the reduction of the suspension), and then he went on his spiel about this being an injury and not focusing on the degree of the injury.

This post has been edited by Display Name: Apr 16 2012, 09:45 AM

[Tex]

lets see how good the kid is.

Into the fire!
/Dokken

[scott03]

lets see how good the kid is.

Into the fire!
/Dokken

hey, he could just get lucky!

[HDH]

You all know I call the conspiracy people out regularly for their ridiculousness. That being said, I think ottawa purposefully didn't say anything about Daniel's status until after the suspension, and THAT sets a bad precedent. You base these things on "injuries" and you allow teams to work the system competitively.

First of all, Shanahan said on B&C that he based his decision on the Ottawa team doctors report which said it could be one game or it could be a year, because it was a head injury and there is no way of knowing the seriousness. He then said that he made his decision knowing there was some sort of injury but not worrying about the severity.

I also think people might have misinterpreted what he said about reducing the suspension. He was asked point blank if the suspension gets reduced if Alfredsson plays tonight and he said "thats a possibility" but he sounded like he was referring to Alfredsson playing tonight being a possibility (not the reduction of the suspension), and then he went on his spiel about this being an injury and not focusing on the degree of the injury.

Well McDonagh suffered an injuries to his balls. "How's it look Doc?" "Could be a game, could be a year".

Honestly, there has to be a more thoughtful thorough review than that.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

First of all, Shanahan said on B&C that he based his decision on the Ottawa team doctors report which said it could be one game or it could be a year, because it was a head injury and there is no way of knowing the seriousness. He then said that he made his decision knowing there was some sort of injury but not worrying about the severity.

That's ridiculous, it doesn't make it any better. "So he was injured, but I'm not going to worry about the severity" Well fucking Chris Neil gave Henke a hang nail. There's an injury, the severity doesn't matter, right Brendan?

It's a completely ASSENINE standard. This isn't what people wanted. Colin used to suspend people based on actions and intent, not on injury. People felt it should be FACTORED in, not the whole damn deciding factor, and he's not using the severity as a barometer, just if the player is injured?

So solely based on Daniel missing SOME time, that warrants 3 games, and by Shannahans previous comments, THAT'S REALLY SIX GAMES! He's said 2 regular season games equals one playoff game.

I don't care how you slice it, they fucked this up!

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

You all know I call the conspiracy people out regularly for their ridiculousness. That being said, I think ottawa purposefully didn't say anything about Daniel's status until after the suspension, and THAT sets a bad precedent. You base these things on "injuries" and you allow teams to work the system competitively.

First of all, Shanahan said on B&C that he based his decision on the Ottawa team doctors report which said it could be one game or it could be a year, because it was a head injury and there is no way of knowing the seriousness. He then said that he made his decision knowing there was some sort of injury but not worrying about the severity.

I also think people might have misinterpreted what he said about reducing the suspension. He was asked point blank if the suspension gets reduced if Alfredsson plays tonight and he said "thats a possibility" but he sounded like he was referring to Alfredsson playing tonight being a possibility (not the reduction of the suspension), and then he went on his spiel about this being an injury and not focusing on the degree of the injury.

By this standard, what does Asham get, because Schenn stayed in the game? What Asham did is less of a problem than what Carl did? REALLY??? And if he does get more games, what is it based on if not injury? It's so wildly inconsistent.

[ree]

....and Alfredsson says he's a game time decision.

This post has been edited by ree: Apr 16 2012, 09:57 AM

[leetchie69]

Shanny Audio with B&C

[gr8flscott]

As bad as this is , if he was to change the suspension this would become even more of a circus and make him look even more foolish than he already looks.

The Rangers just need to go out tonight and win. If Ottawa tries to start some sh!t, just skate away. If they aren't trying to challenge guys named Rupp, Prust or Bickel, then their tough-guy act is a fallacy, and the Rangers don't need any part of it. I just hope that Cally and Dubi (especially Dubi) can contain their tempers.

Dubi more so than Cally.

I don't think Torts is going to let these guys go out there and just start racking up fighting majors or like we saw on Saturday, possible ejections. I'd like to see them play some smart hockey tonight, regardless of whatever goonery Ottawa starts to display.

This (these -icluding Lisa's statement)

The fact that there are fans that want them to dress John Scott for the sole purpose of knocking one of the Senators out cold just disgusts me.

I hear you and agree with what you're saying. However, I don't know if it necessarily "disgusts" me. I just think the idea is a ridiculous over-reaction.

[Display Name]

Just finished the interview and Shanahan said he wanted to be clear that Ottawa didnt try to dupe him with a false injury, etc and he made the decision on Hagelin knowing full well that Alfredsson might be back tonight and that Ottawa let him know they were hopeful he would play tonight. Yet, he still felt that because he left the game and did not return because of a head injury, it was enough to say the hit caused an injury.

[ree]

I hear you and agree with what you're saying. However, I don't know if it necessarily "disgusts" me. I just think the idea is a ridiculous over-reaction.

It disgusts me because these are the same people bitching and whining about what Carkner did to Boyle. So because they did it, that makes it okay to go ahead and do to them? Eye for an eye? Winning a game is more important than human health?

I don't like hearing things like that, regardless of how little I like a player.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

Just finished the interview and Shanahan said he wanted to be clear that Ottawa didnt try to dupe him with a false injury, etc and he made the decision on Hagelin knowing full well that Alfredsson might be back tonight and that Ottawa let him know they were hopeful he would play tonight. Yet, he still felt that because he left the game and did not return because of a head injury, it was enough to say the hit caused an injury.

Than I flat out disagree with him. He has said 2 regular season games equals one playoff game. That means in his mind Carl, a first time offender,deserved 6 games. It's a falt out over punishment.

[Display Name]

I hear you and agree with what you're saying. However, I don't know if it necessarily "disgusts" me. I just think the idea is a ridiculous over-reaction.

It disgusts me because these are the same people bitching and whining about what Carkner did to Boyle. So because they did it, that makes it okay to go ahead and do to them? Eye for an eye? Winning a game is more important than human health?

I don't like hearing things like that, regardless of how little I like a player.

I think that if Torts had to make a decision as to who plays immediately, on the spur of the moment after the shenanigans of game 2, he would lean towards Scott because he's as fired up and angry as anyone. But given the 2 days to think about this, Torts will go with Kreider. He may be impulsive and lose his cool sometimes, but hes also a good hockey coach who knows deep down its more important to win than send messages.

The only way he doesnt go with Kreider is if he does not yet trust him (especially defensively) to play in an NHL playoff game and not be a liability.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

I hear you and agree with what you're saying. However, I don't know if it necessarily "disgusts" me. I just think the idea is a ridiculous over-reaction.

It disgusts me because these are the same people bitching and whining about what Carkner did to Boyle. So because they did it, that makes it okay to go ahead and do to them? Eye for an eye? Winning a game is more important than human health?

I don't like hearing things like that, regardless of how little I like a player.

I think that if Torts had to make a decision as to who plays immediately, on the spur of the moment after the shenanigans of game 2, he would lean towards Scott because he's as fired up and angry as anyone. But given the 2 days to think about this, Torts will go with Kreider. He may be impulsive and lose his cool sometimes, but hes also a good hockey coach who knows deep down its more important to win than send messages.

The only way he doesnt go with Kreider is if he does not yet trust him (especially defensively) to play in an NHL playoff game and not be a liability.

Or if Glen doesn't want his star prospect to get killed by a chump 8th place seed when tensions are higher than ever...

AND NO, I'm not saying they need to run their team scared or allow other teams to dictate how you do business, but the tone of the series, the hype around kreider, and the business aspects all need to be factored in. This kid is supposed to be the future. I think I'd be more angry at the Rangers than someone like Neil if the kid was targeted tonight.

[Display Name]

I hear you and agree with what you're saying. However, I don't know if it necessarily "disgusts" me. I just think the idea is a ridiculous over-reaction.

It disgusts me because these are the same people bitching and whining about what Carkner did to Boyle. So because they did it, that makes it okay to go ahead and do to them? Eye for an eye? Winning a game is more important than human health?

I don't like hearing things like that, regardless of how little I like a player.

I think that if Torts had to make a decision as to who plays immediately, on the spur of the moment after the shenanigans of game 2, he would lean towards Scott because he's as fired up and angry as anyone. But given the 2 days to think about this, Torts will go with Kreider. He may be impulsive and lose his cool sometimes, but hes also a good hockey coach who knows deep down its more important to win than send messages.

The only way he doesnt go with Kreider is if he does not yet trust him (especially defensively) to play in an NHL playoff game and not be a liability.

Or if Glen doesn't want his star prospect to get killed by a chump 8th place seed when tensions are higher than ever...

AND NO, I'm not saying they need to run their team scared or allow other teams to dictate how you do business, but the tone of the series, the hype around kreider, and the business aspects all need to be factored in. This kid is supposed to be the future. I think I'd be more angry at the Rangers than someone like Neil if the kid was targeted tonight.

This series WOULD turn into flyers/pens if someone took a blatant run at Kreider.

[TeamStewie]

Kreider is probably way better off playing his first game on the road.

[scott03]

I hear you and agree with what you're saying. However, I don't know if it necessarily "disgusts" me. I just think the idea is a ridiculous over-reaction.

It disgusts me because these are the same people bitching and whining about what Carkner did to Boyle. So because they did it, that makes it okay to go ahead and do to them? Eye for an eye? Winning a game is more important than human health?

I don't like hearing things like that, regardless of how little I like a player.

I think that if Torts had to make a decision as to who plays immediately, on the spur of the moment after the shenanigans of game 2, he would lean towards Scott because he's as fired up and angry as anyone. But given the 2 days to think about this, Torts will go with Kreider. He may be impulsive and lose his cool sometimes, but hes also a good hockey coach who knows deep down its more important to win than send messages.

The only way he doesnt go with Kreider is if he does not yet trust him (especially defensively) to play in an NHL playoff game and not be a liability.

Or if Glen doesn't want his star prospect to get killed by a chump 8th place seed when tensions are higher than ever...

AND NO, I'm not saying they need to run their team scared or allow other teams to dictate how you do business, but the tone of the series, the hype around kreider, and the business aspects all need to be factored in. This kid is supposed to be the future. I think I'd be more angry at the Rangers than someone like Neil if the kid was targeted tonight.

this is why you sit mitchell and play scott in his place and start kreider. extra insurance in the lineup tells ottawa, not to think about it, not 'we're going to goon it up'.

[ak996]

Guys, enforcers are not deterrents. Scott and Rupp are practically interchangeable, neither really deters anything.

[leetchie69]

Ottawa seems like an over-zealous team.

If the Rangers can keep their cool I think they can used this to their advantage....ASSUMING the Refs do their jobs. Big assumption.

Continue to pound Karlsson.

This post has been edited by leetchie69: Apr 16 2012, 10:23 AM

[leetchie69]

Guys, enforcers are not deterrents. Scott and Rupp are practically interchangeable, neither really deters anything.

I agree with this completely.

I think team toughness is much more effective.

Not just 1-2 guys who really do not deter someone from doing something.

[Hockey101]

And the Rangers should have appealed it. They have an excellent case for it too.

Based on what? It was a forearm hit straight to the head on a formerly concussed elite player. The league dished out five-game suspensions during the season for similar shots. And there is no way that it was worse than Bitz's hit, for the simple fact that Bitz didn't hit anyone in the head.

But the more I watch the Carkner play, the more angrier I get over things. EJ Hradek made the point that Carkner effectively got two games because of the game misconduct penalty attached. Fine, but then also mention that the Rangers lost a much more significant player in Brandon Dubinsky for jumping in to protect a helpless player getting mercilessly beat on. That injustice should be considered too, if we're considering everything. Also, Carkner played 29 games this season, with three points total. He entire purpose of being in the lineup was to jump someone on the Rangers, which he did within two minutes of the game's start. If the Rangers went up 3-1 and decided to dress John Scott, who immediately jumps Chris Neil and wails his face ten times before he can even react, would he get one game? Lastly, most pundits are making the point that this was retaliation for Boyle's shots on Erik Karlsson. Really? Glorified face-washes? Really?

But, hey, moving on. Rangers need to get more pucks toward the net and their defense needs to get more involved in the offense. Win the series, because no one will care otherwise.

Based on other hits in these playoffs that did not amount to three games. Shanahan is full of shit. Bytz should have gotten a 5 game, then. Did you see that hit? Brown's hit on Sedin then is also a one game suspension, then.

[ree]

Brown's hit on Sedin last night was clean, though.

[Hockey101]

Brown's hit on Sedin last night was clean, though.

It was still high.

[ak996]

And the Rangers should have appealed it. They have an excellent case for it too.

Based on what? It was a forearm hit straight to the head on a formerly concussed elite player. The league dished out five-game suspensions during the season for similar shots. And there is no way that it was worse than Bitz's hit, for the simple fact that Bitz didn't hit anyone in the head.

But the more I watch the Carkner play, the more angrier I get over things. EJ Hradek made the point that Carkner effectively got two games because of the game misconduct penalty attached. Fine, but then also mention that the Rangers lost a much more significant player in Brandon Dubinsky for jumping in to protect a helpless player getting mercilessly beat on. That injustice should be considered too, if we're considering everything. Also, Carkner played 29 games this season, with three points total. He entire purpose of being in the lineup was to jump someone on the Rangers, which he did within two minutes of the game's start. If the Rangers went up 3-1 and decided to dress John Scott, who immediately jumps Chris Neil and wails his face ten times before he can even react, would he get one game? Lastly, most pundits are making the point that this was retaliation for Boyle's shots on Erik Karlsson. Really? Glorified face-washes? Really?

But, hey, moving on. Rangers need to get more pucks toward the net and their defense needs to get more involved in the offense. Win the series, because no one will care otherwise.

Based on other hits in these playoffs that did not amount to three games. Shanahan is full of shit. Bytz should have gotten a 5 game, then. Did you see that hit? Brown's hit on Sedin then is also a one game suspension, then.

In the recent history of the NHL, has a single player/team ever had a successful appeal of a suspension? My understanding is that appeals go to Bettman. For the life of me I cannot possibly fathom Bettman overruling a decision rendered by his head disciplinarian, especially when said disciplinarian is in his first year on the job.

Appeals are futile. This is why the PA wants an independent appeal process instituted in the next CBA.

[ak996]

Brown's hit on Sedin last night was clean, though.

It was still high.

No it wasn't. His hands weren't high at all. It was a clean check.

[ree]

Brown's hit on Sedin last night was clean, though.

It was still high.

He was making a play against the boards - you have to know there's a reasonable chance someone's going to come in for a hit. Brown also wasn't targeting his head, no elbow was thrown. Clean hit.

[Rhino]

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I wonder if there isn't an element of Shanny trying to 'scare Hagelin straight'.

When I watched the suspension video, it sounded like he subtly emphasized that it was Hagelin's first year in the league when he mentioned him having no prior history. His comments on the air about Hagelin being a good kid somewhat support the idea that in his mind this was a sort of preemptive over-punishment to make sure it sinks in that this is not ok.

"You see what happens Carl? This is what happens. This is what happens Carl!"

This post has been edited by Rhino: Apr 16 2012, 11:06 AM

[Sed]

"You see what happens Carl? This is what happens. This is what happens Carl!"

Carl's no stranger to the Alps.

[Beamer]

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I wonder if there isn't an element of Shanny trying to 'scare Hagelin straight'.

When I watched the suspension video, it sounded like he subtly emphasized that it was Hagelin's first year in the league when he mentioned him having no prior history. His comments on the air about Hagelin being a good kid somewhat support the idea that in his mind this was a sort of preemptive over-punishment to make sure it sinks in that this is not ok.

"You see what happens Carl? This is what happens. This is what happens Carl!"

This is what happens when you elbow a stranger in the head?

[Beamer]

"You see what happens Carl? This is what happens. This is what happens Carl!"

Carl's no stranger to the Alps.

Ok, I just figured out what this must refer to.
Never saw it that way, but I'm a slow Mr. Falcon this morning.

[I'mBrendanAn...]

Shut it dickbags.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


Don't I look fan-fucking-tastic here.

[LisaLisa]

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I wonder if there isn't an element of Shanny trying to 'scare Hagelin straight'.

When I watched the suspension video, it sounded like he subtly emphasized that it was Hagelin's first year in the league when he mentioned him having no prior history. His comments on the air about Hagelin being a good kid somewhat support the idea that in his mind this was a sort of preemptive over-punishment to make sure it sinks in that this is not ok.

"You see what happens Carl? This is what happens. This is what happens Carl!"

Having Tortorella as your 1st NHL coach should be more than enough to guarantee he's 'scared straight'. Torts scares me sometimes and I sure as fack don't play for him.

[Mike B.]

Shut it dickbags.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


Don't I look fan-fucking-tastic here.

You - you are welcome here.

[Nilan 666]

I'm hoping this is the same guy who does Rex Ryan on KSK.

[Hockey101]

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I wonder if there isn't an element of Shanny trying to 'scare Hagelin straight'.

When I watched the suspension video, it sounded like he subtly emphasized that it was Hagelin's first year in the league when he mentioned him having no prior history. His comments on the air about Hagelin being a good kid somewhat support the idea that in his mind this was a sort of preemptive over-punishment to make sure it sinks in that this is not ok.

"You see what happens Carl? This is what happens. This is what happens Carl!"

......... No. Shanny is just being a dick. You don't "teach" this rookie a lesson in the playoffs like this. If you are right then Shanahan should be fired.

Bitz... two games and he's a rough player. Hagelin? Three games.

Utter bullshit. What was Hagelin going to get if he did the same thing to Alffy as Weber did to Zetterberg? Probably not just a fine.

I can't wait to see Neal's suspension. If Hagelin gets 3 games, Neal should get five games as he is also a repeat offender. If he gets three or less, Shanahan can really get fucked by a gorilla.

[I'mBrendanAn...]

Actions - shmactions - no harm, no foul bitches. Intent is for criminals and pedophiles. If no one gets hurt, then no one gets punished.

Besides , I fucking hated you guys when I played in New York. Twas merely a vehicle in which to get my 600 goals and this badass job where I am the King. Plus those cookies Marge makes.NOMNOMNOM


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA. Fuckers.


Excuse me while I catch up on some reading.




This post has been edited by I'mBrendanAndImaketherules: Apr 16 2012, 01:44 PM

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

It's supposed to be funny, but it's making me hate him more.

[Dunc]

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I wonder if there isn't an element of Shanny trying to 'scare Hagelin straight'.

When I watched the suspension video, it sounded like he subtly emphasized that it was Hagelin's first year in the league when he mentioned him having no prior history. His comments on the air about Hagelin being a good kid somewhat support the idea that in his mind this was a sort of preemptive over-punishment to make sure it sinks in that this is not ok.

"You see what happens Carl? This is what happens. This is what happens Carl!"

......... No. Shanny is just being a dick. You don't "teach" this rookie a lesson in the playoffs like this. If you are right then Shanahan should be fired.

Bitz... two games and he's a rough player. Hagelin? Three games.

Utter bullshit. What was Hagelin going to get if he did the same thing to Alffy as Weber did to Zetterberg? Probably not just a fine.

I can't wait to see Neal's suspension. If Hagelin gets 3 games, Neal should get five games as he is also a repeat offender. If he gets three or less, Shanahan can really get fucked by a gorilla.

...anally, instead of in his beer-can-filled vajayjay.

[Dunc]

Perspective on Shanahan from someone who isn't an insane Rangerland denizen.

brendan-shanahan-is-ruining-the-nhl

...I hate to reference arguably the worst movie ever made in 50 First Dates, but is there any denying that Shanahan is Drew Barrymore here? Actually he’s worse. Barrymore wakes up everyday forgetting who she is and the decisions she has made, but Shanahan can’t even make it through the day without erasing suspension decisions he has made since he makes multiple suspension decisions in the same day and they have no correlation to each other...

[Beamer]

Perspective on Shanahan from someone who isn't an insane Rangerland denizen.

brendan-shanahan-is-ruining-the-nhl

...I hate to reference arguably the worst movie ever made in 50 First Dates, but is there any denying that Shanahan is Drew Barrymore here? Actually he’s worse. Barrymore wakes up everyday forgetting who she is and the decisions she has made, but Shanahan can’t even make it through the day without erasing suspension decisions he has made since he makes multiple suspension decisions in the same day and they have no correlation to each other...

Dude, on the Adam Sandler scale of 1 to 10 50 First Dates is, like, an 8. The argument can't be made when it's a top 5 film for him (and he's made what, 800 movies by now?)

[Nilan 666]

There's no reason it can't be both. He's only made like 3 films if we're being honest. Retitling does not a new movie make.

[Beamer]

There's no reason it can't be both. He's only made like 3 films if we're being honest. Retitling does not a new movie make.

Fair.

[Greatone]

Little Nicky blows.

[Knight of Dight]

"You see what happens Carl? This is what happens. This is what happens Carl!"

Carl's no stranger to the Alps.

I've had it with these money-fightin suspensions in this Monday-to-Friday League.

This post has been edited by Knight of Dight: Apr 16 2012, 10:31 PM

[Dunc]

Perspective on Shanahan from someone who isn't an insane Rangerland denizen.

brendan-shanahan-is-ruining-the-nhl

...I hate to reference arguably the worst movie ever made in 50 First Dates, but is there any denying that Shanahan is Drew Barrymore here? Actually he’s worse. Barrymore wakes up everyday forgetting who she is and the decisions she has made, but Shanahan can’t even make it through the day without erasing suspension decisions he has made since he makes multiple suspension decisions in the same day and they have no correlation to each other...

Dude, on the Adam Sandler scale of 1 to 10 50 First Dates is, like, an 8. The argument can't be made when it's a top 5 film for him (and he's made what, 800 movies by now?)

plus, that was an excerpt from the article, not necessarily my take (I thought the last one with him as his own sister - which I was basically forced to endure as part of a multi-family outing - should be on a list of forbidden Geneva Convention torture methods).

[Ebase]

[BaHa]

OCCUPY NHL HQ.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to being perplexed.

WE! ARE! THE NINETY-NINE PERPLEXED!

This.

[Rocha]

A Blackhawk player just got three games for something more innocent than Hagelin's penalty, I think:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=628346

I think a fair amount would've been Hagelin 2 games, this guy 1.

But now he/they appear to be overzealous in suspensions after allowing Weber to ram Zetterberg's head into the glass without any discipline and looking stupid for it.