Skip to content

Senators owner wants huge changes to suspension system

Apr 20, 2012, 10:03 AM EDT

Eugene Melnyk Getty Images

Senators owner Eugene Melnyk wants to see the league crack down on head hits and he’s got some big proposals for how to do that.

“I have, for the longest time, said there is no room in this game for that kind of play,” Melnyk said. “No. 1, these are elite hockey players. They’re not just plastic figures you can kick around and think they’re going to come back.”

One of the changes Melnyk wants is for repeat offenders to be booted from the NHL.

“If there’s a one-off, mistaken hit, fine,” Melnyk said. “That’s up to the league to decide, but if you have a repeat offender then that person should be out of the game without question. They have no business playing in the NHL. It’s the equivalent of getting a junkyard car driver in the Daytona 500. Why are you putting a reckless driver in an elite group?”

It’s worth noting that New York Rangers’ Carl Hagelin, who elbowed Senators captain Daniel Alfredsson in the head, was not a repeat offender and thus would not have been removed from the league under Melnyk’s proposed system. That being said, Melnyk has other proposed changes that might have impacted the Senators’ situation.

Melnyk wants to see hockey players put into A, B, and C tiers, so that if a C-tier player takes out an A tier player, the other team will lose one of their A-tiered players as punishment.

“It’s very simple: You rank your players ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. You take out of my ‘A’ players during a playoff series, I get to select one of your ‘A’ players that’s not going to play,” Melnyk said. “Forget about the goon, he doesn’t care if he plays again, he’s getting paid, but give me a choice of who I can take off of your roster.”

So let’s say for the sake of argument that Raffi Torres is a C-tier player. After Torres’ devastating hit on Marian Hossa, Chicago would then get to point to Ray Whitney or Shane Doan and say that player can’t play.

Melnyk thinks this is going to “get elevated to much more full-scale discussion at the (next board of) governors’ meetings.” We’ll see what comes out of that.

  1. govtminion - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM

    So how do you declare whether someone is an ‘A’ or a ‘B’? Who makes that decision?

    I like the point about repeat offenders like Torres not being allowed to return, but the tier system sounds kind of ridiculous to me.

    • Playing the Ponzi - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:50 AM

      How each determine rates their own players? They would be incentivized to rate them appropriately based on how value – or more accurately, irreplaceable, they are to the construct their team. If a team wants to rate a “star” player a B or C so he can go after other teams, they would run the risk of not being fairly compensated should he be the one hurt.

      It seems like an interesting idea to me.

      In answer to the contention that it empowers an “A” player to just run “C” players at will, you just stipulate that the team that was on the receiving end of the infraction can choose either the matching tier, or the player who committed the infraction – basically, whichever is higher.

      • Playing the Ponzi - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

        I missed including my premise in my above comments ^ – that is, each team should rank its own players. They incentivized to do so appropriately, imho.

    • habsman - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

      Maybe based on salary?

      • taytay099 - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:02 AM

        Scott Gomez would love that.

      • habsman - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:29 AM

        Under the proposed system, if Gomez (based on salary) was taken out by lets say Asham, we could we could use our pick on Crosby.

        We would also send Asham a thank you note.

        Yeah, this thing needs some work.

    • polegojim - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:36 AM

      Actually – if you remember, he got it from me.

      Ranking is not hard – production/greater positive impact = higher rating.
      NHL already does it all year long with stats, league leaders, etc. They have all the data necessary and rank every player at all times.

      Break up players according to stats, top to bottom, in thirds A B C (approx 900 players, less about 90 goalies)

      Offensive rank = points (about 200 per category)
      Defensive rank = +/- or points (about 100 per category)

      Red Wings A B C
      A
      Henrik Zetterberg 69
      Pavel Datsyuk 67
      Valtteri Filppula 66
      Johan Franzen 56
      Jiri Hudler 50
      Todd Bertuzzi 38
      Niklas Kronwall 36
      Nicklas Lidstrom 34
      Danny Cleary 33

      B
      Ian White 32
      Darren Helm 26
      Drew Miller 25
      Tomas Holmstrom 24
      Justin Abdelkader 22
      Brad Stuart 21
      Jakub Kindl 13
      Jonathan Ericsson 11
      Cory Emmerton 10

      C
      Brendan Smith 7
      Gustav Nyquist 7
      Kyle Quincey 3
      Chris Conner 3
      Jan Mursak 3
      Doug Janik 1
      Patrick Eaves 1
      Fabian Brunnstrom 1
      Joakim Andersson 0
      Riley Sheahan 0

      Or even more simple could be – you take out a 50 pointer, you lose a 50 pointer, or the next closest. Point for point docking of a player and the league decides who….or even better, your NEXT opponent(s) decides. If multiple games, each opponent decides who sits, per game.

      Talk about incentive to keep your nose clean.

      • habsman - Apr 20, 2012 at 1:00 PM

        Salary could be more simple.

        Entry level to 2,999,999 “C”
        3,000,000 to 4,999,999 “B”
        5,000,000 and above “A”

        This would take out any ranking issues. And salary is for the most part the reflection of how the team values the player. (No Gomez jokes please).

      • polegojim - Apr 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM

        I’m not seeing salary as fair – some guys settle for 1mil/1year deals to attempt to win a cup, but are actually A or B players.

        Points ranking is clean, clear, and impacts top performers…. not top check cashers.

      • danphipps01 - Apr 20, 2012 at 2:54 PM

        Thought: to prevent higher-level players from taking out lower-level players with impunity (Milan Lucic and Brad Marchand are at least B-level for Boston, for instance), make it “a player of equivalent rank or the player responsible at the opposing team’s discretion.” So, the GM or coach or some such person decides if they want to freeze the guy who hit their player or someone of equal value to their player. That way, nobody can go around throwing dirty hits without risking hurting his team at least as much.

      • polegojim - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:43 PM

        I like that concept.

        But… do you really think that a Pavel Datsyuk will hunt down a 4th liner for any reason?

    • critter69 - Apr 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM

      If NFL teams can pick a franchise player, I don’t see why NHL teams would not be able to pick A, B and C players.

      And an A player for one team might be classified as a C player on another team.

      Unless you are of the opinion that the NFL (ownership, coaching, management, players) is light years beyond the NHL in intelligence?

      Maybe the proposal should be modified a bit though. The offender, if suspended, doesn’t play, and doesn’t get paid, while the injured player is out, and only when the injured player starts playing again does the offending player start serving his suspension (and also without pay). If the injured player never returns, too bad for the offending player.

  2. geo91 - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:15 AM

    Lol such a bad idea

    • themohel - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM

      Why? Please explain why you think it is bad.

      • polegojim - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:37 AM

        Yes, how is it bad? If you understand stats that the NHL already keeps, it’s not hard to structure and manage.

      • geo91 - Apr 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM

        Ex. If Tyler Kennedy somehow takes out Alexander Burrows in the Stanley Cup Finals you actually think it’d be right for Crosby to sit the rest of the Stanley Cup finals? Only an moron would think thats fair for a guy to miss playing in the finals for someone else’s actions. So, so dumb.

      • themohel - Apr 20, 2012 at 3:23 PM

        Geo, that’s right. You think that might be a disincentive to Tyler Kennedy to take out Burrows with a suspendable head-shot? I do. I think you supported the opposite position quite well, but I wouldn’t stoop to calling you a moron…

  3. onearmdragon - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

    I’d say the team with a suspended player should also lose the bench seat for the length of the suspension. Maybe add in a large fine for each game lost to the team. Say $50,000 to $100,000 for each game. This way the team suffers more than losing a goon, and gets the embarrassment of fines.

    The only way to deal with this is to make the team employers responsible for their players actions. The players will not let up, until teams demand it.

    • govtminion - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM

      So what you’re saying is that if (for example) Nick Backstrom pulls his cross-check and gets suspended for a game, the Caps can’t call someone up or dress a previously-benched player to replace him, they just are short one person for the game?

      I actually really like that idea. Very intriguing. (Just hope your goalie never gets suspended!)

      • wingsdjy - Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM

        I think you should lose the roster slot, but not a specific position. So if a goalie gets suspended, you can short yourself a forward instead.

  4. oviovertime - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:28 AM

    Ok so now your encouraging an “a” tier player to take out a “c” player. In that case they get to pick a “c” player to sit. I don’t like that system

    • habsman - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM

      The “A” tier player gets suspended, as well as a”C” tier teammate. No?

  5. taytay099 - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM

    I sincerely hope he never gets to make any decisions that can have any impact on the NHL. This idea is childish at best. “You broke my favourite toy so now I’m breaking yours.”

    Dirty hits, cheapshots and injuries have been around since the beginning. The solution before was to have enforcers police the game which made everyone happy. Gave less skilled players a chance to make it to the NHL. Star players loved having tough guys on the team. Sometimes a cheap or dirty hit could create a great rivalry with plenty of fight filled games that the fans love.

    This “system” would fix nothing and probably hurt the league. Lets say Giroux was injured by Cooke and they say Crosby can’t play now. How is that fair to Crosby, the team or the fans? Take away “A” players and less goals will be scored during their “suspension.”

    • themohel - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM

      The idea is to set up a system with real teeth, in which neither team’s stars are hurt in the first place. The risk of losing Crosby may be high enough to ensure that PIT coaches and management take steps to prevent Cooke from taking cheap shots. I only use these guys as an example because you did – Cooke seems to have taken to heart the strong message he got last year; I applaud him for that.

      • taytay099 - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM

        I understand the purpose, but I don’t see how it helps the game. I think it would hurt the game to suspend other star players for a teammates’ actions. It isn’t fair to the fans or to the suspended “A” player.

        I agree with you about Cooke, though. He’s a very different player this season. I just wanted to use Giroux and Crosby as an example.

      • themohel - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:54 AM

        Taytay – I knew you weren’t picking on Cooke, just wanted to make sure everyone knew it was an example only (from both of us). I think it would help the game if it is actually effective at decreasing the hits to the head. I suspect it would help a lot. About fairness – do Hawks fans think it fair that Hossa couldn’t play last night; or do Canucks think it is fair that Daniel Sedin couldn’t play in the first three games of the series?

      • taytay099 - Apr 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM

        I’m a Canucks fan. I thought the suspension should have been more than 5 games; I’ve never felt that Daniel missing any games to injury was unfair. Every team will have to cope with injuries during the season and playoffs, though. I was a little angry, but I don’t think banning other players for a crime they didn’t commit is the answer.

        I think Melnyk comes across as childish with this idea. I like his intent to protect players from head shots. He seems sincere about fixing this broken suspension system, but this does not seem like a good solution. Why ban repeat offenders? Not every hit to the head or hit from behind is intentional. Alex Ovechkin has a history of dirty hits and slew foots. He’s also been suspended 3 games. If he throws another questionable hit should he be banned? Is Aaron Rome a dirty player because his hit on Horton was 0.8 seconds late? What about Kronwall? A lot of his hits have caused concussions and if Melnyk’s system is implemented then Kronwall could be banned after he Kronwalls a couple more people.

        The whole junkyard car driver in the Daytona 500 analogy just doesn’t work. He’s basically calling players like his own Matt Carkner useless to the NHL.

        Sorry for the rant, I just really don’t like this idea.

      • themohel - Apr 20, 2012 at 7:43 PM

        Taytay – no problem on the rant; the whole thing a pretty damn messy! Not an easy one to solve. Enjoy tonight’s games and good luck in your next game.

  6. tobie1003 - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM

    Nota good idea. Fans pay to see the stars play

    • comeonnowguys - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM

      Because giving Weber a slap on the wrist because he’s a star has worked out so well so far.

    • themohel - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:55 AM

      Didn’t some of them pay hoping to see Hossa last night? And Alfie? And Daniel Sedin?

      • critter69 - Apr 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM

        Maybe some did.

        But what would happen if Hossa and/or Alfie and/or Sedin had appendicitis, or got shot, or were in a car accident, etc. prior to ‘the game’. Or a goon on the other team injured Hossa and/or Alfie and/or Sedin in the first few seconds of the first shift they were on the ice. The ‘fan’ would have paid, but not seen Hossa and/or Alfie and/or Sedin.

        And besides, if they are a fan of a team, they shouldn’t care who plays as long as the team wins. If they are rooting for a particular player, then they should NEVER be considered a fan of a team.

      • themohel - Apr 20, 2012 at 5:58 PM

        Critter – the examples you cite are outside the control of the NHL or his team. Matt Cooke (up til this year) and Torres (and others) are within the control of the team and the league. Try again.

        Also, the stated goal is to keep stars in the game. You many not care if they play “as long as your team wins,” but most fans do.

        That last sentence is beyond a response.

      • critter69 - Apr 20, 2012 at 6:15 PM

        So, themohel, a fan is a fan if they favor a player(s), but if they favor one team over another, then they are not a fan?

        That is some twisted logic. And I’d invite you to explain it to a Chicago Cubs supporter, or a person who supports Indiana University or Purdue University; Southern Cal or UCLA; Harvard or Yale; or any other college or university that has a rivalry across multiple sports with another college or university.

        Oh, and I never stated that anything was inside or outside the control of the NHL. You are the one who brought up the names a ‘fan’ might have ‘wanted to see’ and bought a ticket for, I didn’t. I was just using the names you provided. And besides, a ‘fan’ might have bought the ticket a week in advance but the player won’t play because of an injury, or medical condition, or whatever, within hours of the start of the game, or been suspended by the NHL based on action in a game within a couple of days prior to the game. Remember, a ticket is for a game, not a guarantee that specific players will actually play in that game. Can the ‘fan’ get a refund from the team if the person they wanted to see doesn’t play in the game they bought the ticket for?

        As to the final sentence? A fan of a team, rather than a ‘fan’ of a specific person, is so low class that you wouldn’t consider them a fan? What tripe.

      • themohel - Apr 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM

        Critter – I guess I’ll say it slower…. You said a player might not play a game because he was shot on the way, or got in a car crash. It was hard to tell, but it seemed you were making some point like players miss games for lots of reasons, so what’s the big deal. My point was that the NHL can control things that happen on the ice to a certain degree – the shooting, not so much. So maybe they can address the things they have control over. You didn’t respond to this at all, my friend.

        “If they are rooting for a particular player, then they should NEVER be considered a fan of a team.” This is your sentence. I suspect that Penguin fans root a bit for Crosby, Van fans for the Sedins, Hawks fans for Toews, Kane, and Hossa. By your twisted logic they cannot be considered real fans. How is it out on that ledge by yourself?

        “So, themohel, a fan is a fan if they favor a player(s), but if they favor one team over another, then they are not a fan?” I know American real good, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here…. People are usually fans of their team AND the players on said team. They usually want their team AND the players of that team to do well. They like some players on their own team more than others (I bet some PHX fans like Doan more than Torres). Other than that I have no clue how to respond.

        Peace out

      • critter69 - Apr 20, 2012 at 8:06 PM

        themohel?

        So a fan is not a fan unless they have a ‘favorite’ player? And if that player is traded, transfers, etc. to another team, the fan’s allegiance transfers?

        Always?

        In all situations, never varying?

        And as I stated, a fan might buy a ticket one week ahead of a game, but circumstances might change in the week after the ticket was purchased. Or do you think the NHL checks to see if themohel bought a ticket to a game, and makes sure that all the players themohel bought that ticket for will play that night?

        Oh, and I’m sure that several fans in the DC area bought tickets to last night’s game (maybe a week or two ago), expecting to see Backstrom play. Did the Capitals offer to buy back those tickets because he was suspended?

        During the latter part of 2011, many people bought tickets for hockey games during most of January, all of February, and most of March, to see Backstrom play, and not always in DC. He was out because of an injury. Did ANY team offer to buy back the tickets because Backstrom was not playing?

        Oh, and I didn’t imply that a fan of a team cannot also be a fan of a specific player. I’ve been a fan of the San Francisco Giants baseball team since the early 1960s. When Willie Mays was traded to the New York Mets, I remained a fan of the SF Giants. When Juan Marichal retired, I remained a fan of the SF Giants. When Barry Bonds retired, I remained a fan of the SF Giants. When Bobbie Bonds retired, I STILL remained a fan of the SF Giants, but someone told me that I now needed to find another team to back since Bonds was no longer there. Guess what? I am a fan of the San Franciso Giants.

        Maybe if you tried to read and comprehend what is being written by others, you wouldn’t have to write slow (unless that is your usual method of writing posts).

  7. yarguy - Apr 20, 2012 at 10:42 AM

    On the other hand, the idea that a team would have to play with one fewer skater for each player suspended has some merit. That wouldn’t remove any “A” players, but would put some pressure on the team. As it now stands, when a useless player like Torres is suspended, the team suffers no consequences. Granted, the 18th skater is seldom a factor in a game, but it does give the coach one fewer option when he is not there.

  8. davebabychreturns - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM

    I agree with Melnyk’s intent – you have to hit these players so hard they may lose their livelihood, and eventually you have to hurt the teams employing these guys as well.

    That being said, divvying up the players in the league into tiers in order to impose “eye for an eye” suspensions is crazy, as is banning a player on their second offense – what that will do is stop the league from suspending players for anything that they can get away with letting slip through the cracks (same way they do everything they can to avoid giving out 10 gamers to players who leave the bench to join an altercation).

    What needs to happen here is that someone needs to take discretion out of the hands of the individual so that everyone knows where they stand.

    An accidental headshot during play or a hit to the head outside of play (that is not part of a fight between two consenting players) gets you five games, an intentional headshot during play gets you ten. Your second headshot suspension doubles the penalty, your third triples it.

    You’d have players like Raffi Torres service 40-50 game suspensions, if that doesn’t teach players nothing will.

    The problem with this of course is when you have to suspend Duncan Keith or Shea Weber and their coach/GM/owner starts crying about it to the league, the media, anyone who will listen. Unfortunately the league has zero integrity so they simply will not be throwing the book at these players unless they absolutely have to.

    • habsman - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:43 AM

      Agreed.

      Shanahan has brought this upon himself.

      First, he comes out and says there will be a different standard for discipline in the playoffs. For the goons, it was like waving a pork chop in front of a bull dog.

      Second, he started basing his discipline on how it might effect a team, a series, a franchise etc. Instead he should put the onus back on the players where it belongs and dole out suspensions based on their actions, not who they are.

      If Yanick, instead of Shea Webber had driven Zetterbergs head into the glass, he would have been gone minimum three games.

  9. ThatGuy - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM

    Never work, you would never be able to get by the NHLPA a rule that allows a player to be suspended when he did nothing wrong.

    The idea about losing a roster spot may work, and seems pretty good to me.

    • polegojim - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM

      Not ‘suspended’, but a ‘team penalty’. Won’t cost the non-offending player a dime, only costs the offending player and the team… and I still say – the HC should pay.

      Very few players have ‘performance based’ contracts that would be affected.

      PERFORMANCE BONUSES- What players may earn in performance bonuses?

      Performance bonuses will only be permissible for the following types of players: (1) players on entry-level contracts; (2) players signing one-year contracts after returning from long-term injuries (players with 400 or more games who spent 100 or more days on injured reserve in the last year of their most recent contract); and senior veteran players who sign a one-year contract after the age of 35.

  10. stakex - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM

    All this suspension crap is getting out of hand. Every time a teams star player gets hurt, said team comes up with an even crazier (and often poorly conceived) idea how to punish people.

    This idea is a joke. First of all, there is already too much tlak about special treatment based on who a player is…. placing labels on players based on skill (how does one do that btw?) is only going to re-enforce that. Not to mention a talented player with no record should NEVER be forced to sit just because someone on his team made a poor choice. Thats just crazy. Think how many games Crosby would have missed last year had he not been hurt under this system. Ten regular season games, plus the entire first round of the playoffs for doing nothing more then having a d-bag as a teammate. I hate Crosby, but thats just wrong no matter how you look at it.

    Look, hockey is suppose to be a tough sport. Should the NHL do what it can to get nasty, blind side headshots out of the game? Of course. However its getting out of hand. Torrest might be a scumbag, but his hit really wasn’t that bad (I think Neals hit was worse, for which he wasn’t suspended)…. yet hes probably going to have the book really thrown at him since the NHL is suspension crazy right now.

    There are definatlly things that need to change about the NHL suspension system. There needs to be more consistency and a more “set in stone” system for determining punishment. It shouldn’t be one guy doing what ever he feels like at the time…. it should be a system that hands out balanced punishment. Also, who that players are involved and if a player was injured should not factor in. If two players, one a star and one not, throw identical illegal hits and one player causes and injury but the other doesn’t…. both should recieved the same punishment. You shouldn’t get a pass for being lucky you didn’t hurt someone.

  11. cardsandbluesforever - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:54 AM

    this is a step in the right direction. i dont agree with the teir system though- kind of a slap in the face to players if you ask me.

    instead of rating them a , b or c how about the team that had their player taken out gets to choose any player on the opposing team to sit. the one exception is you cant pick thier goalie unless they ran your goalie over and took him out.

    as for repeat offenders, one infraction allowed with normal suspensions, eg 1 game 5 games etc per season, if they commit more than 3 infractions over the course of 3 seasons their contract canceled and are booted out of the leage for 3 years. after 3 year suspension that player must apply to be let back into the nhl. if they are allowed to return, the first 3 years if the player commits one infraction they are booted from the nhl for life.

    and by infraction i mean leveling any player with intent to injure, accidents will be ruled as non infractions but player will still be suspended with # of games depending on the severity of the incident.

  12. DTF31 - Apr 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM

    What a stupid idiot

  13. DTF31 - Apr 20, 2012 at 12:23 PM

    I see him supporting this idea until Neil takes out a star player and then he doesn’t get Spezza for a while.

  14. capsfan19 - Apr 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM

    Maybe not throw them out the league but take sizeable fines instead. Such as a player that makes 3 million slap a 100,000 fine etc. PS have not done any math for this so im sure there’s a better and more efficient way to figure it out. But a 2500 dollar fine is slapped on a player that makes six mil? That friends is a joke

    • critter69 - Apr 20, 2012 at 5:58 PM

      I’ve heard some NFL players, as soon as they sign a contract, set aside a specific amount of money to cover the fines they expect for the season, then add a few more dollars ‘just in case’. That way, they know they’ve probably covered ‘their expenses’, and the rest of the contract money is theirs to spend as they wish.

      I don’t think NFL players are light-years more intelligent than NHL players.

  15. dclogicatlast - Apr 20, 2012 at 1:43 PM

    One unforseen concequence of this tier system is that it would be an incentive for some guys to fake injury. For example, using the the Wings data from above, if Dan Cleary were to get run by some goon on say Pittsburgh, he could feign injury so that the Wings can select Malkin to sit the remainder of the series. Then let Bertuzzi get run by another goon and you can get rid of Crosby.

    Seems like a recipe for guys that barely make tier A to feign injury and get rid of the top stars on the opponent.

  16. sharksfan97 - Apr 20, 2012 at 1:56 PM

    Love these ideas, the future of the game is at stake. Just look at the list of players who were lost to needless headshots in just the past year alone. The NHL needs to take drastic, NFL type action to save its future or else!

  17. bigoldorcafromvan - Apr 20, 2012 at 3:59 PM

    I think it is an idea that should be looked at.. It might be too confusing for the NHL to try and impliment because they can.t even get the zebras on the same page. My idea is that intentional head shots should carry a stiffer suspension than 5 games. eg. Keith. It should start at 20 games, like that hit anyway. And for eg only. Keith sits out of the lineup until Sedin comes back to play and then the 20 games start. A hit like Rome did last year say it should be 10 games but he is out until Norton can play again then Rome starts the 10. But softer elbow pads and shoulder pads would also be a start. JMO

    • themohel - Apr 20, 2012 at 6:54 PM

      I agree with what you’ve written here, but why would Keith get 20 and Rome get 10? I know “van” is in your name, but you seem too level headed for it to be bias, so I’m interested in the reason.

      Also (not just for you), Shanny has said 1 playoff game equals 3 regular season games. Just wondering what people think of that?

  18. thehighcountrybear - Apr 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM

    What a load of road apples…the proposal would never be entertained by any Union worth its salt and it’s impossible to quantify a player’s worth by statistics: no Union would allow language in a CBA that would disqualify a member from work for any reason as it’s the Union’s job to protect its membership, their jobs and of course the dues paying status of the member; and how does anyone use available statistics to measure a player’s net value…? Salaries are lagging indicators because they are for the most part based on past performance, and plus-minus stats are the product of a collective effort with no real veracity from a statistical view point for an individual player [ a player can get a plus or minus one stride off the bench without having had any influence on the play for instance ]? Simple solution likely entertained ad nauseam elsewhere: match the penalty to the extent of loss suffered by the damaged player. For repeat offenders, hit both player and team with meaningful fines, and if it is evident the fouls were directed by coaching or management, do what the NFL did to the Saints…hammer offenders with massive fines and performance sanctions including exclusion from drafts. In the meantime, if Melnyk could attend to fixing the restrictive upgrade process on his software as it comes bundled in computer packages, then I’d be inclined to view his opinions as something more than hocus-pocus coming from yet another software manufacturing continually leeching money from its customers to simply keep its product functioning…

  19. lostpuppysyndrome - Apr 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM

    Why not have the whole team share in the penalty? After all, many if not most of the cheap and nasty hits are done by players who are willing to sacrifice their playing time to help their team out. If the coach and the players all had to chuck in $5-10K everytime a stupid play is made, it might make the player think twice about doing something dumb. Works in the military doesn’t it?

  20. shortsxit - Apr 20, 2012 at 11:48 PM

    First, the NHLPA is never going to approve of a system that bans non-offending players from playing. It’s not fair to the player, the team, or the fans.

    Second, how would this work during the regular season? There are 82 games before this would even become relevant.

    Third, this system would do exactly what was trying to be avoided from the very start: base punishment on results rather than the action.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches