Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
OBXer

2013-14 In-Season Canes News, Updates and Talk

Recommended Posts

On Gleason, it does seem odd he's not at practice given he was labeled as healthy on Sunday. 

 

Edit: How convenient, a lower body injury, out a week or so. They don't know how to "classify" the injury.  Won't make trip to NJ.  Right.

 

Does seem a bit odd that no one mentioned that injury before the Ottawa game when they listed him as a healthy scratch and gave the A to Malhotra. 

 

(There, that post was much shorter).

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but the lawsuit is from a bunch of players that almost no one has heard of who are probably looking for a better payday.  You knew hits and fighting and whatnot were part of the game when you got in...hell, half of you probably never wore a helmet your entire career.  Get over it...get over yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I welcome debate on this. That's part of why I put it out there. Your response is reasoned and I actually see where you are coming from w/ most of it.

 

I have never played truly organized hockey, I have played on the pond. I have played organized basketball at the high school level and was ironically asked to play on the HS hockey team, but frankly did not get up at 4:30 AM for anything. I have, however, been a fan of hockey for enough years to have watched Blackhawk games on UHF on a 12 inch black and white TV in the days of Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita. 

 

You want to know something ironic? I was physically at the game that for years held the record for most fights and penalty minutes in a game in NHL history. The ref dropped the puck at center ice and both teams left the puck there and just started fighting. Bruins/Northstars, I was about 10. The list of penalties was so long the announcer just read it for minutes between periods. 

 

I've been following hockey very closely since 2006, especially the Canes, and have attended more games than I probably should have including every game of the cup run. Even before that I went to countless AHL games in various cities, where fighting is even more rampant.

 

I use the WWE reference to color a vague flavor of the game at the periphery. It is there on the edges, and my point to the NHL is this: "don't go further that way". If you've read my post game posts, unlike many, I rarely blame the refs or indulge in "the league wants the big market teams to win", or other conspiracies. (I do think that the league periodically puts out messages to the refs to watch for this or that, and certain teams have propensities for doing those things; sometimes that looks a little fishy), but 99% of the time the sport is played and refereed straight up.

 

But I have been thinking on the fighting thing for a while. My opinion is admittedly less valid than a guy that played in the NHL, then coached, then GM'd, but then again, there are those guys who agree w/ me too. 

 

In fact, one could argue that being within the AHL/NHL/Canadian Junior world for too long one really doesn't know how to process hockey without fighting.

 

I know that high school and college and European and Olympic leagues get by fine w/out sanctioned fights. How is this possible? Why are they not laying all over the ice due to cheap shots not retaliated for?

 

I know that the NFL is doing pretty well without fights. Linemen kick each other's butts constantly. EVERY play. There are plenty of late and questionable hits. How can this be? 

 

If you watch enough hockey games, eventually you see the pattern.

 

First, the fights are there for themselves mainly. For the most part the fight itself is the thing. It is not retribution or punishment or justice. It is their to sell tickets. Teams carry guys singly for this purpose for crying out loud. Please try to tell me that Westgarth plays in the NHL if there is no fighting? 

 

So what is the pattern for supposed justice?

 

Dirty player A (say Sean Avery) takes a very cheap and dangerous shot at one of our skilled players. Maybe even sucker punches him in the face and breaks his bones (see Andrew Ladd). Our guy is not only out for the game but a bunch of games. Our goon then jumps in and tries to go w/ Avery. But Avery refuses. Now we get an instigator penalty. But justice must be served right? So ultimately our goon fights their goon. That'll teach em. Yet Avery slinks by unscathed. Next game we are far more afraid of another cheap shot from Avery than anyone is of our goon. 

 

In the older NHL or in the current AHL, there is going to be a goon on goon fight no matter what. It's hockey. There's always some hit or high stick or something to fight about.

 

I do believe that goonery and fighting can be effectively used to intimidate another team or player for sure. But that's just bullying. Not sure how that makes the game better. 

 

Don't get me wrong. I want hockey to remain a contact sport. I want to see hits. I can take about one All Star game per year. But as with football, contact, toughness and physical play and fighting are totally different things. Ruutu is (or was) a very physical player, but best I can recall he's been in two fights in his entrée time with us. And one was a stupid, required, staged fight to atone for a hit from a previous game. 

 

2009:

 

RALEIGH. N.C. — When Colorado winger Darcy Tucker fought Carolina's Tuomo Ruutu at 3:58 of the first period in the Hurricanes' 2-1 victory Friday, it wasn't much of a shock.

Although Ruutu called Tucker to apologize for the Oct. 23 hit from behind that knocked the Avalanche winger out of the lineup with a concussion and drew Ruutu an NHL suspension, and Tucker wasn't publicly bitter, the fight was a predictable bit of accountability.

Ruutu appeared to hold his own in the skirmish, but suffered an "upper body injury" in the fight and didn't play again.

 

That whole thing was just stupid. It is but one example that has led me to my position.

 

At least 85% of the players in the league basically never fight anyone ever. 

 

Staged fights between goons is a sideshow, period. One might like the side-show. I can't say I have no interest in watching. Who can turn away from a fight? But it is a side show. When I go to a great rock concert, I don't want a the music stopped for 5 minutes of comedy. (Unless it's a Weird Al concert). 

 

I can tell you also that as a Hurricane's fan, if you line up the direct and indirect effects of fighting on our teams, at least since 2006, it has been a long list of bad. We really don't find very effective goons anyway. We are generally playing catch up on that all the time. Frankly, it is kind of hard to see how a Cane's fan would want fighting in the game. We've never been good at it. We get intimidated far more than the other way around.

 

Dang, this is going on and on. Sorry Legend, but I'm on a roll!

 

Anyway, I am sensing a shift in the direction of the creators of opinion and the decision makers moving more and more away from fighting. This game has shown a willingness to change, especially after lock outs. Look how fast hybrid icing happened. 

 

Powers in the NHL have raised limiting or ending fighting in the past. Ironically it was the players union that wanted to keep it. I guess solidarity for the goons to keep their jobs. But now there is this lawsuit from players. This just might provide the cover for the NHL to move it out:

 

"Look, we wanted to end fighting, and you players insisted on keeping it. And now you sue us? Well now we have no choice"….

 

Rem, you took me asking if you have ever played the wrong way. I was saying this because at times your insights are very good. That being said if were gonna take it there it does in fact matter if you have played or not. I am not saying that makes you unable to apreciate the game and understand it with the vast knowledge that you have at all. I played hockey for most of my life and will say this, your right high school gets by just fine without fights,so does pee wee hockey without slapshots. Should slapshots be taken out too? Its all about the level you play at.

 Point is that at times when you are having a bad game either as a team or as a player and are getting destroyed on the scoreboard or being put into the boards a fight can lift your spirits give you a bit of hope even. I didnt used to fight alot by any means but I would get other players to rage and come at me and while they sat in the box we had the advantage. Sometimes that can turn the tide of a game without fighting hockey looses some of the strategy of the game IMO. The Ruutu fight needed to happen "staged" or not his hit on Tucker was very dirty and Tucker left the ice not on his own two feet, Ru had that coming. There is no place in the game for a guy like Avery, dont misunderstand I think fighting should be a part of the game but Not Marty mcsorley, Todd Bertuzzi stuff. The NHL wants less fights because it can get people up in arms, and frankly we are the least desired sport to watch. The NHL is the underdog of perfessional sports aside form soccer etc. This would mean that they are pushing for faster paced higher scoring games that are enjoyable for fans and bandwagoners to watch either regularly or casually like you said fighting can slow the pace of a game in terms of actual time so its place is becoming obsolete. Canadian and European hockey is faster paced with less fighting its more finesse and less brawn thats what the NHL is going for. Its a business decision to go that direction to make hockey more marketable to everyone and it is working. But I just want to end on the note that I truly didnt mean that comment to come off the way that it did. I think out of alot of posters you have a good eye and keen sense of the Canes and hockey in general, so please dont take that personally as it was not phrased correctly.

Edited by Kopes2718

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting on Gleason.  I like him, but he really does seem to be the odd man out at this point.  I just hope that a rush decision hasn't been made and we end up losing someone who is not 100% yet, and he goes somewhere else and lights it up.  Although in recent years, Gleason's game has not been the one that the fans fell in love with.  Got mixed emotions on this one IF he is out because of a pending trade.

 

I think that all fighting should be banned until we get someone who can do it, and do it well.  :sarcasmalert: I do recall our players last year commenting that they felt more comfortable on the ice when Westgarth was in the lineup.  Now whether you like or hate him, if our players do feel that way, and continue to feel that way, he is bringing value although it may not be the kind we expect or want to see.  Obviously, the management doesn't see it as a value, or feel that it is worth too much or he would have been in the lineup much more than he has.  JMO

 

I think we can all make arguments for both sides of the fighting issue all day long.  It's great to know that we can agree to disagree on the subject.  I have a feeling that court rooms are going to be the deciding factor on whether or not it stays or goes.  As long as we have a GM that wants to see it removed from the sport, the odds of that grit that many want to see will probably never end up in Raleigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've linked the following article several times, but I think it deserves to be reprinted in it's entirety (the reason I happen to think that is because I agree with a lot of what it says and I'm too lazy to put it into my own words, lol).       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

The problem with "team toughness"

Written by Corey Sznajder on

6 August 2013

 
One hockey cliche that absolutely drives me crazy is the idea that you need "team toughness" in order to win games and it's mostly because everyone has their own definition of it. In my opinion, guys who are "tough to play against" are those who keep the puck away from their opponents, frustrate them by controlling the play and beat them on the scoreboard. However, most people's idea of "team toughness" is limited to players who are big, deliver hits and are willing to "drop the gloves" to stand up for their teammates.

 

Getting "tougher to play against' was a priority for the Hurricanes this off-season and aside from the Mike Komisarek signing, they haven't done too much to improve that. In fact, there have been a few people strongly against the Nathan Gerbe signing because he isn't "big or gritty enough" to play in the bottom-six here. Personally, I hate the idea that you need to be a "gritty" player to play in the bottom-six because other teams have gone against that and it worked out fine for them.

 

Just ask the Chicago Blackhawks of last season, who were icing a fourth line of Michael Frolik, Marcus Kruger and Viktor Stalberg in the Stanley Cup Finals. Neither of them are guys I would consider "tough" or "gritty" but they are all good hockey players who made the most of their ice time. They killed penalties, played well defensively and were able to keep the puck in the opposing team's offensive zone while contribution some secondary scoring on top of that. This is what you need out of a bottom-six, not just guys who can hit. There's nothing wrong with adding toughness to your bottom-six, but they need to be able to contribute outside of that if they want to be effective.

 

The whole issue of adding "team toughness' is nothing new for the Hurricanes because it feels like they've gone through this debate every off-season. Last year, everyone was obsessed with adding an enforcer to help "protect" Jeff Skinner. Nevermind that enforcers do little to "protect" players in today's NHL and few of them play more than nine shifts a game. Playing an enforcer in today's NHL almost leaves your team shorthanded because of how sparingly they are used. Despite this, the Hurricanes decided to give up three assets for Kevin Westgarth for the Kings before the season started. Everyone thought that the team needed someone like him to prevent other team's goons from taking runs at Skinner & their other stars. 

 

That never happened. Skinner ended up taking two big hits last year, one of which giving him a concussion, and Westgarth responded only after the hit happened. This is neither Westgarth or Muller's fault because no coach is ever going to use their enforcer with one of their stars so they are rarely going to be out there to "protect" them. Even if they were on the ice at the same time, it would do little to prevent other players from taking runs at him. Playing on the team as Shawn Thornton and the same line as Milan Lucic did nothing to protect Marc Savard from a blindside hit by Matt Cooke. What makes you think that adding more "tough guys" will protect Skinner? Sadly, there are always going to be guys like Raffi Torres, Matt Cooke and Chris Neil who take runs at your star players and adding an enforcer or another physical player to lineup counter it is not going to stop them.

 

Still, adding "team toughness" has been the mantra this off-season because fans are tired of seeing the Canes being "pushed around." I can understand that because it's frustrating to watch when the team is losing. The problem I have with wanting to get tougher is if people start clamoring for the Canes to add "tough" players for the sake of it. This is a strategy that has rarely worked out well for other teams and I can't see the Hurricanes having success with it, especially if it involves benching or trading a more skilled player for a "gritty guy who adds toughness and sandpaper to the lineup."

 

Let's recall the moves the Buffalo Sabres made last summer. Tired of having other players, specifically those on the Boston Bruins, push them around, they decided to beef up their roster by trading Derek Roy to the Dallas Stars in exchange for agitating forward Steve Ott and defenseman Adam Pardy. They also signed forward John Scott to add some size to their roster and he has plenty of that at 6'8" and 270 lbs. The Sabres were indeed a tougher club last season and no one pushed around their star players. They were also an awful hockey team.

 

Buffalo's new "tougher" roster finished in the bottom-ten of the NHL standings and dead last in the Northeast Division. They were also one of the worst defensive teams in the league and had some horrific puck-possession numbers. No one pushed them around, but they also barely had the puck and spent 60-65% of games playing in their own end at even strength. Some of Buffalo's players may have underperformed, but a lot of this was predictable. They traded away someone who was their top-line center for years for a "tougher" player who would be a third line center on a contending team. Buffalo was also regularly using a lineup spot for Scott, who played 5-6 minutes a game and got lit up defensively during those minutes. But hey, at least no one pushed them around. 

 

Also guilty of this are the Edmonton Oilers, who have been at the bottom of the NHL for a good part of the last five years. After cutting ties with enforcers Zack Stortini, JF Jacques & Steve McIntyre a few years ago, they continued to invest in "tough guys" by giving a three-year contract to Ben Eager, signing Darcy Hordichuk twice and trading for Toronto Maple Leafs fourth liner, Mike Brown. All of these players add toughness, but they are also liabilities on the ice in every area but physical play. The Oilers have filled their bottom-six with guys like this for years and it's one reason why they've been one of the worst teams in the league over the last four or five years. The Oilers were "tougher" and had a different look but they were still a bad team and that's all that mattered.

 

I don't disagree with the notion that Carolina needs to get tougher, but if it means benching or moving a player to make room for a "tough guy," then this isn't the direction the team should go in. People say that they need to add protection for Skinner or add a "body crushing" defenseman to help Cam Ward. You know what would really help Ward? Adding more forwards who can keep the play out of his own zone so he doesn't have to see 30+ shots a night. That would help a lot more than someone who is useless with the puck on his stick and serves no purpose other than to bang bodies.

 

In the end, you want to ice the best team possible and committing a roster space and playing time to someone who can only contribute physically isn't going to accomplish that. This all goes back to fundamentals because the main goal in hockey is to outscore the opposition, which is done by possessing the puck, getting it into the offensive zone and getting shots on net. It's up to the front office to assemble a team who can effectively do this on a nightly basis and it shouldn't matter if their bottom-six is filled with big, physical players or smaller, faster more skilled players. If they can get the job done, then they should be welcomed on any NHL club.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of teams let good players fall out of their hands because they want to get "tougher" and they end up icing a worse product as a result. Thankfully, the Hurricanes haven't done anything to drastically effect this and let's hope it stays that way over the next couple of months. Puck possession and territorial play are what wins hockey games, not hits, fighting and "toughness."

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erat wants  a top 6 role, wont  fit into our  top 6... JMO

dinz, while this may be true, do you not think that Erat could not replace Dwyer on Jordan's line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rem, you took me asking if you have ever played the wrong way. I was saying this because at times your insights are very good. That being said if were gonna take it there it does in fact matter if you have played or not. I am not saying that makes you unable to apreciate the game and understand it with the vast knowledge that you have at all. I played hockey for most of my life and will say this, your right high school gets by just fine without fights,so does pee wee hockey without slapshots. Should slapshots be taken out too? Its all about the level you play at.

 Point is that at times when you are having a bad game either as a team or as a player and are getting destroyed on the scoreboard or being put into the boards a fight can lift your spirits give you a bit of hope even. I didnt used to fight alot by any means but I would get other players to rage and come at me and while they sat in the box we had the advantage. Sometimes that can turn the tide of a game without fighting hockey looses some of the strategy of the game IMO. The Ruutu fight needed to happen "staged" or not his hit on Tucker was very dirty and Tucker left the ice not on his own two feet, Ru had that coming. There is no place in the game for a guy like Avery, dont misunderstand I think fighting should be a part of the game but Not Marty mcsorley, Todd Bertuzzi stuff. The NHL wants less fights because it can get people up in arms, and frankly we are the least desired sport to watch. The NHL is the underdog of perfessional sports aside form soccer etc. This would mean that they are pushing for faster paced higher scoring games that are enjoyable for fans and bandwagoners to watch either regularly or casually like you said fighting can slow the pace of a game in terms of actual time so its place is becoming obsolete. Canadian and European hockey is faster paced with less fighting its more finesse and less brawn thats what the NHL is going for. Its a business decision to go that direction to make hockey more marketable to everyone and it is working. But I just want to end on the note that I truly didnt mean that comment to come off the way that it did. I think out of alot of posters you have a good eye and keen sense of the Canes and hockey in general, so please dont take that personally as it was not phrased correctly.

 

All good Kopes. You make good points and the fact that you rolled out there and took hits and played does matter. That's the beauty of these boards, different perspectives. It makes the game more interesting, has more texture. I am in no way an expert. If I were I would try to figure out some way to get paid for this. 

 

Lake, that article lays out the experience as a Canes fan of trying to enjoy fighting. Even though we have not actually chased lots of lower quality players for the sake of toughness, we do seem to constantly struggle to be tough enough. 

 

But to me, watching the game, it seems like the tougher team is the one that plays overall physical. Hitting, scrapping, winning the battles, blocking shots, etc. Just seems that can all be done even w/ no fighting. 

 

Has anyone kept track BTW of the # of fights this year. Seems like we have way less than usual.

 

:boxing:

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with points of the article, particularly the last sentence. He says that you win with puck possession and territorial play. Guess how you can accomplish this? By being physical on the forecheck and winning board battles. You wear down the others teams defense, this is often a stated goal of teams going into a game. He says what would help Ward is to have forwards carrying the puck out of the zone and get shots, not guys who bang bodies. I'll flip that and say what good is it getting it into the zone if you are just going to lose possession once the puck goes into the corner. Also, pointing out big hits or cheap shots that did occur doesn't mean that more liberties/cheap shots weren't taken as a result of team composition. I would agree with him on this point, but still you cant say what was prevented because it didn't happen.

The article is relevant if everyone was calling for a tough guy or more fighting, but that's not the impression I got here or elsewhere. People were calling for players that were more physical on the forecheck, that would lead to puck possession. If you want to make the argument that goons and fighting have no place, fine. To understate what hitting and team toughness mean, or to say that some teams are not less effective because they are soft, I'll argue that all day long. You want to build an all skill and finesse team, good luck with that, especially in the playoffs. Chicago still had guys like Bickell, Carcillo, and even Seabrook when needed and they had good overall team toughness (meaning they looked out for each other and acted like they gave a damn about each other). A guy like Bolland pretty much defines grit, but he can still play. Both parts of his game are effective, not just the skill aspect.

I don't think Westgarth is exactly taking away time from some skilled, point producing forward at the moment, or last season either.

Edited by Kyrule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I forgot to add was that the validity of Sznajder's logic seems to be reflected in the style of the teams having the most success lately.  From Chicago to most of the teams surging at the top of the Western Conference, speed and skill seem to be the new route to success much more so than brawn and physicality.  Boston may be the exception that proves the rule (although I've never fully understood what that means :grin: ).

 

More on goons and fighting.  Below is an excerpt from an article on the subject.  http://theleafsnation.com/2011/7/20/do-goons-help-win-games

 

"There are two traditional justifications for one-dimensional fighters at the NHL level: (1) fighters protect and provide space for skilled players ("protection"); and (2) fighters can inspire a team with a winning bout ("inspiration"). I intend to test those justifications.

 

Some of this work has already been done. Kent Wilson has examined the question from a more tactical perspective, noting that with the instigator rule goons can be effectively neutralized by simply putting out superior hockey players against them and declining invitations to fight. Given their inability to actually play hockey, goons are "costs without benefit". Doug Robertson and Cam Charron have similarly explained why there is no tactical role for goons in today's NHL. Goons are almost never on the ice with skilled players and combined with the instigator rule, are largely unable to discipline someone who takes liberties with more-skilled teammates."

__________________________________________

The author does provide some analyses that seem to support his conclusions.

 

As far as less fights this year; I wonder if that might be related to the fact that most of our games this year have been close.  I suspect that neither team has wanted to subject itself to a potential disadvantage by either instigating a fight or doing something that would lead the other team to instigate but might be penalized, again resulting in a disadvantage.

 

And a question: does anyone recall watching a game and getting a feeling that other teams are taking runs at our players? I recall more clear examples going the other direction (Murphy's clip and Westgarth's boarding).  Or that we've been intimidated by other teams?  Not to say we haven't been too often outworked on the boards, but that hasn't seemed to be a byproduct of intimidation to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate goon hockey and I hate staged fights. Goon hockey does nothing but intentionally injure another players and staged fights away from the action only slows down the game and IMO kills any momentum in the game. Yet a fight in repose to a dirty hit or rough play along the boards is an understandable reaction and IMO a part of the game.

 

When the NHL tried to speed up the game calling interference penalties and holding for clutching and grabbing I really liked the speed and skill that year. But after 06 that was modified a little. Even then goon hockey wasn't eliminated. I'm sure we all remeber the hit on Cole.

 

My point is you  probable can and should limit the fight for show part of the game but not the fights that evolve out of hard play. I could live with and still enjoy a more European style game but I'm not sure I want to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing. Two nights ago on the NHL Network they brought up why the West was dominating the East. They speculated it was because more teams in the West are bigger/stronger/more physical and play a "heavy" north-south game. The Blues, Kings, and Sharks are good examples of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but the lawsuit is from a bunch of players that almost no one has heard of who are probably looking for a better payday.  You knew hits and fighting and whatnot were part of the game when you got in...hell, half of you probably never wore a helmet your entire career.  Get over it...get over yourselves.

You could say the same about the NFL lawsuit. Those ex-NHLers saw the payday those guys got and they want a piece. The owners will have to take it into consideration one way or the other.

I'm not saying that I like it, just that I think it will come to pass. Businesses make decisions daily on things upon whether it's cheaper to take something to litigation or to settle. Why do you think the NFL settled? It certainly wasn't because they thought it was the right thing to do. They did it to end the lawsuit. The next step is to make changes to prevent a follow up lawsuit since they have now somewhat "admitted" culpability. End result, quarterbacks that can't be tackled without fear of reprisal from the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The West always dominates the East.. They play two totally different games. The East plays more of a european finesse game while the West plays a pure Canadian/American style (Hard, gritty, hit everyone type fast paced game). Boston is one exception, they play a hard hitting tough game and that seems to be pretty successful to me.

 

So to people saying that just speed and finesse are keys to success, have a look at the past 30 stanley cup winners and ask yourself if it was finesse that got them that far.

 

TEAM TOUGHNESS will always be number one... blocking shots, winning battles, getting to the rough areas in front of the net and absolutely giving 110%, grinding the oppositions Dmen into the boards to tire them out and take advantage offensively. The toughest teams always win in the playoffs and always will.

 

To people who are against fighting in hockey, give this article a read: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2013/10/30/pro-fighting-column/3320245/

 

PS: Not trying to bash anyone or be rude, just stating facts along with my opinion.

  Enjoy your thanksgiving in the US fellow caniacs!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Toronto Maple Leafs Trade Rumors: John-Michael Liles For Tim Gleason?

If it is accurate I don't know enough about the situation to comment (e.g., Glesaon's health, why he might be in the dog house, etc.) except to add that a 1-1 trade would save us about $3.75m over the remainder of the two contracts.  But if it is true, seems like something beyond Gleason's recent play has to be a factor since the Leafs would give Liles away if they could. 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it'd help the team, but it's already hard enough picking who's going to play on the backend. This doesn't make those decisions any easier, but I think Liles would be an upgrade over Gleason at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want another Marc-Andre Bergeron on our hands, especially one with two more years remaining on his contract and who is 33 years old. I like our defense the way it is and I'm not a fan of dressing seven defensemen to help the PP. I would rather a trade address our need at the forward position. This would affect our depth on defense but still I feel a forward is needed more than a d-man right now.

 

Also, an article/interview with Ward just went up on NHL.com (he sounds pretty confident):

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=693083&navid=nhl:topheads

Edited by Kyrule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the second or third reference I have seen saying Gleason is in the doghouse. I wouldn't think it was because of the bad change he made in the last game he played but maybe. Of course it could be something between him and the coaches or maybe its just a rumor that is finding legs.

 

Gleason played on a broken foot last year so I'm going to cut him some slack. He hasn't played that much this season and it might just be a case of him playing up to game speed or maybe he needs a change of scenery. We have extra D-men so I can see a trade but adding another won't solve that problem. If we do go get Liles at some point we still need to make another defensive decision.

 

The trade talk seems to have some credibility and Gleason is safely on the shelf. So maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To people who are against fighting in hockey, give this article a read: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2013/10/30/pro-fighting-column/3320245/

 

To people who are for fighting in hockey, give this article a read: Former NHL enforcer Jim Thomson: My case against fighting - NHL - Brian Cazeneuve - SI.com

 

If we must trade Gleason, couldn't we get a gritty type winger with say 30 point potential? I mean for those who want us to get tougher, I'm not thinking JM Liles gets that done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dinz, while this may be true, do you not think that Erat could not replace Dwyer on Jordan's line?

Maybe, but Patty brings alot of intangibles to the game..Wish i had more time to elaborate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...