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

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.

lets see how good the kid is.

Into the fire!
/Dokken

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

It was still high.

It was still high.

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

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!"

Carl's no stranger to the Alps.

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!"

Shut it dickbags.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


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

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.

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...

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.

Carl's no stranger to the Alps.

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?)

WE! ARE! THE NINETY-NINE PERPLEXED!