radoran

Winnipeg seems to be doing pretty well attendance wise:

http://espn.go.com/n.../_/sort/homePct

They may have a smaller arena but they are definitely getting more fans to each game.

Right, I'm saying in 2-3 years after the "newness" has worn off.

Look at the bottom ten in attendance - Anaheim and Carolina have won Cups since the lockout. New Jersey, Colorado and the Islanders have storied histories. Dallas "won" the Cup and trails Phoenix and Columbus as the WORST attendance in the entire league (% of house). Then you've got Nashville, Minnesota, Florida and Columbus - with Nashville and Minnesota filling 90+% of capacity.

So the question is: does Winnipeg still sell out after making the playoffs once in a decade and winning zero playoff games?

Simply put, the Flyers need to keep their sticks on the ice. Also, Lavy should mention to the refs the next time the Flyers are called for a hook, that technically speaking, the chicken-wing move some players do to draw a hook is in fact a holding the stick penalty.

At best that would make it offsetting minors.

In order for the "chicken wing" move to work, one's stick has to be already jabbed into the midsection of the opposing player...

This gets back to your "sticks on the ice" comment.

They are running out of places that can sustain an NHL team. Contraction would be best. Speaking of sustaining teams, I was flipping back and forth btw some games the other night. There were about 43 people at the Colorado game and about 200 at the Toronto game. I know TO is fine, but the attendance at NHL games seems to be hurting. Every Dallas home game I catch seems to be empty too.

Article the other day said MLS has now eclipsed NHL in average fans per game:

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2011/11/mls-surpasses-nba-nhl-in-average-attendance/

A lot of this has to do with terrible teams in bad hockey markets, but it also referenced the idea that MLS put teams in areas that had a big interest in soccer. They went where the amrket was, they didn't expect a pro team to trickle down and develop interest.

I'm curious to see how Winnipeg reacts to having the Atlanta Thrashers over the next few years. If all you have is godawful hockey, how much do you really wanna go watch it?

What about Seattle? I think it would be great to add a team to the northwest and you don't get into another cross conference re-alignment situation.

If there's support in Seattle, I think that'd be a great idea. Seattle's far enough from Vancouver.

From teh FB:

Philadelphia Flyers

INJURY UPDATE: Flyers GM Paul Holmgren on (D) Erik Gustafsson: "Erik underwent wrist surgery this morning at Methodist Hospital. The surgery was performed by Dr. Randy Culp. We expect Erik to be out of action for six (6) weeks.”

Can Schenn play D? ;-)

He intended to hit him. Good for him. I still say you come all the way out that way, you get hit. A defenseman would. A forward would. Both have far less padding and not quite as nifty a facemask/headgear. I'd say the goalie is already more protected than anyone else on the ice. Between the padding and the nice little crease where no one is supposed to touch him, interfere with him, etc, he's well more protected. Behind the net? Eh, yeah, protect him there if you want. But if you deliberately go out of your way to leave your safe zone and get bit...eh, you get bit. Suck it up, Ryan.

The important part here is that hitting the goalie in that situation is against the rules. Goalies are not "fair game" when they are in that position. Period.

I'd like the instigator rule to go away, but while it's here Shelley is even more ineffective and overpriced.

I understand and respect your opinion about how things should be. It's just not how they are.

It's all good. I still have that overwhelming sense of relief that those two decade-long contracts are gone.

Sharp, Patrick.- Worst. Trade. In A Significant Amount of Time.

I see no reason to force a round peg into a square hole. If there's a spot for Schenn, use him. If not, go back and put up two points a game in Adirondack and we'll call you when we square the circle.

I'm not buying into the "Canada deserves another team" argument at this point. I think Winnipeg put a cap on that "deserving."

Seven of the top ten Canadian cities already have a team, with Winnipeg the only city under a million people (695K). Quebec has about 20K more.

The Buffalo metro has about 1.1M people and there have long been questions about whether Buffalo "can support" a team. I can tell you first hand there are fewer hockeymad cities in the US like Buffalo (Rick notwithstanding) and the team is an integral part of what makes the city identify itself. If Buffalo "can't support" the Sabres, shouldn't we wait to see if the Jets actually succeed in Winnipeg before deciding more small Canadian cities "deserve" NHL teams?

You can forget about Hamilton - Tronno will never allow it, much less Buffalo. After that, London has less than 500K people. That leaves Quebec.

Does Quebec "deserve" a team simply because it had one and lost it? If Quebec puts together a convincing argument that it will have a new arena and signifcant fan and sponsor support for a team - long term - then I have absolutely no problem with the Quebec Coyotes.

I'm just not down with the idea that they "deserve" it.

Besides, Quebec is a very nice city. I'd hate to see those ruffian Canadian fans burn it down if their team loses.

I think Jagr has a feel for when a team has the "it" to do something special in a season. I think he feels that he has that here - that this was an opportunity to play for a real contender.

Pittsburgh clearly was treating him as a swan song. He wanted to be an eagle.

I don't think he ever felt that Washington had a serious chance when he was there and, I mean, seriously - the Rangers? Sheeeya.

Philly has given him a late career charge and he's making the most of it. After watching former Flyers go out and get their names on the Cup, I won't mind if a couple former Penguins are on it again under the name PHILADELPHIA FLYERS.

He's a real force with the puck. Eerily reminds me of Lindros at times - the 68 (instead of 88) doesn't help. Not the physical edge to the game, but the physical presence on the puck.

His influence off the ice is enough that they should just give Shelley's "intangible" money to Jagr. The impact on Voracek could be - COULD BE - career changing.

'68 and '93 playing for the Flyers. We've got to be among the most popular teams in Czech.

Imagine if they had Vokoun instead of Bryzgalov...

You can actually see Lucic switch from 'play the puck mode' to 'seek and destroy mode' if you watch the stick during the play. That said, good for him. While goalies are not fair game, they should be. They have more padding than everyone else, and in this instance, Miller was playing the puck outside of the crease. If that was any skater, no problem.

Since on the topic of goalies, get rid of the trapezoid rule, put in the 'no skaters in the crease' rule, and treat goalies like any skater outside of the crease. Want to play the puck in the corners? Prepare to get drilled like you're a defenseman. Want to rush out and play the puck? Well, you played the puck, have a dose of pain.

Seems more than fair.

I wouldn't mind a stricter crease rule and a restricted "no hit" area for goalies.

That's just not the way the rules are now.

The way the rules are now, Lucic deliberately charged Miller, caused a concussion and should have been suspended.

As you note, you can see the moment he switches from "play the puck" to "seek and destroy" - it blows my mind that Brendan Shanahan came out and said he saw no clear intent to hit Miller.

Lucic was maybe deciding on a pizza topping for after the game? Rewriting the opening paragraph of his thesis paper on the Asian Experience in the Reconstruction South? Musing on whether or not he put too much thyme into the stew last night?

How is it that it is obvious to EVERYBODY BUT Brendan Shanahan what Lucic's "intent" was?

some additional points from here:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/The-NHL-doesn-8217-t-need-to-further-coddle-ov;_ylt=AvgVimf058WXMWpPXyD06jN7vLYF?urn=nhl-wp17575

Again - not arguing whether the rules are "right" or "wrong," rather noting that they are, in fact, rules.

Goalies are not currently "fair game," according to Rule 42.1 Charging:

And according to 69.4 Interference On The Goaltender:

Does anybody see Lucic making "reasonable effort to avoid such contact"? How about ANY effort whatsoever?

The primary argument here is that Lucic had "every right" to hit Miller. While the NHL argues that Lucic not only made reasonable efforts to avoid the contact, in fact he had no intent to hit Miller whatsoever.

I find both positions bizarre to say the least.

I am in full agreement with Wyshynski that they don't need more rules to protect goalies.

They already have them. They just need to be enforced. And respected.

It's not impossible to fit him into the lineup, but the question is where:

First Line:

• LW Scott Hartnell(notes), C Claude Giroux, RW Jaromir Jagr(notes)

Second Line:

• LW James van Riemsdyk(notes), C Danny Briere(notes), RW Wayne Simmonds

Third Line:

• LW Matt Read, C Max Talbot, RW Jakub Voracek

Fourth Line:

• LW Harry Zolnierczyk(notes), C Sean Couturier(notes), RW Zac Rinaldo(notes)

Clearly Nodl (while injured) is "out". I'd caution against having an entire fourth line of rookies, but we already have an entire fourth line of rookies.

It's a good problem to have, but it is a problem...

NHL officiating is horrendous - oh, heck, major sports (and college sports and, well, sports in general) are, too.

These guys are just people. They don't see everything. They don't call everything. They aren't perfect.

My problem more often than not is with the second ref on the ice making the call from out of position when the other ref has the better line on the play.

I think a possible solution in this instance is to allow reply for assigning penalties (at a break) when blood/obvious injury is involved. Just because a player "gets away with it" in the speed of the game shouldn't be an excuse to avoid the penalty. This stick to Talbot's mouth is a classic example. Then to give HIM a double minor is simply adding insult to injury.

Obviously some logistics would be involved.

Guys definitely need to keep better track of their sticks regardless.

I wouldn't trade Voracek straight up for Crater. OK, maybe in FHL...

And why give Columbus Bob? As for the rumor of CLS seeking a goalie, that's why they dealt LeClaire and kept Mason - HE was "their goalie." (not that LeClaire was a BFD).

The issue with this team is not the forwards - although there is a little inexperience there - the deal to make would solidify the D corps.

Where do you put Crater in this lineup? Sure, the fourth line "worries" me a bit (aside from 18-going-on-30 Couturier) but would you slot a $5M Center into the Fourth line?

First Line:

• LW Scott Hartnell(notes), C Claude Giroux, RW Jaromir Jagr(notes)

Second Line:

• LW James van Riemsdyk(notes), C Danny Briere(notes), RW Wayne Simmonds

Third Line:

• LW Matt Read, C Max Talbot, RW Jakub Voracek

Fourth Line:

• LW Harry Zolnierczyk(notes), C Sean Couturier(notes), RW Zac Rinaldo(notes)

Kaberle was great in Tronno - where there's no pressure to succeed or actually win anything.

Now he's just playing out the string and collecting a check.

His coaching style convinces guys to take lazy stick penalties? Lazy holding penalties?

What's he giving them? Sleeping pills?

There is no league-wide vendetta against the Flyers. Virtually ever referee has entered the league in the last 20 years, so why would they have any vendetta against the Flyers - I'll wager some of them don't even know who the Broad Street Bullies are. Devorski is the longest-tenured ref, and he's only been on since 1987.

You know what people who watch their team play believe? That the refs are out to get them. In every city I have watched hockey, the vast majority of fans feel that there is some league-wide conspiracy against their team. No, really.

Stop making lazy plays and you'll stop taking lazy penaties. It's really that simple.

I think quite often you see refs calling games "tight" at the start of the season and then the calls tend to ease off down the stretch.

There are, of course, exceptions to every rule.

But I think the refs feel they can teach guys to stop some of the more routine stuff and then they can really call the egregious things when it counts.

That said, the Flyers have been taking far too many routine penalties and they need to adapt to how the game's being called.

I agree. The call was "charging." It wasn't charging unless it's some magical nonsensical interpretation because it was a goalie. They want to call "interference" because the puck left a split second before? Fine. Still the wrong call, but at least it's borderline justifiable. If Carle, for example, had run out there in front of him and cleared the puck the same way and Lucic hits him, no one's talking about it.

If Miller wants to avoid bruised ovaries, he should stay in his crease.

I'd be quite happy with a rule restricting the goalie's movements - even beyond the "trapezoid" and crease.

I can totally see where this is a "regular hockey play" - except that the goalie is involved. The question of "should Lucic be able to hit Miller" in that situation is academic. The refs are going to call a penalty if you make absolutely no effort to avoid contact. That's the rule. Is it how it "should" be? I'd say that the goalie should have extra protection, yes. For many reasons which have been amply cited in this thread.

Again, goalies restricted to a certain area outside the crease? I could work with that. Hell, I think we'd have done better if some of our goalies were harnessed to the net.

If Lucic runs Bryzgalov like that, gets a two minute, knocks Bryz out for several games (and counting) and gets no suspension I have a feeling many would be citing some sort of league vendetta against the Flyers.

And if Shanahan doesn't think that Lucic "intended" to hit Miller - which is what the "he has every right to make that hit" argument implies and the League has explicitly states DID NOT happen - then what on God's green Earth was Lucic intending to do??

I can't see them retiring #88 - but I also don't see a large number of people clamouring to wear it. There are only two in the league right now.

Hmmm... I wonder if the ping pong balls dropped differently, if Pat Kane would have worn 88 in Philly...

Still, I think, like Pelle, it'll remain "unofficially" retired.

I think there's no question we got the better of the Crater deal. No question whatsoever.

I don't know that I give up the #8 for Crater along, much less the #8 AND Voracek (#7 overall).

This is clearly the right place and the right time for Voracek, with Jagr coming back. I'd like to hope this guy blossoms.

IMO Columbus needs someone who knows more about hockey running their hockey operations.

Aside from Ashbee, I don't think the Flyers have retired any number of a player who is not in the Hockey Hall of Fame. And Ashbee's clearly a special case.

There are 11 people related to the Flyers in the Hall - and you wouldn't really count Allan Stanley, Darryl Sittler, Paul Coffey or Dale Hawerchuk as "Flyers" first.

That leaves Clarke, Barber and Parent (along with Snider, Keith Allen, Gene Hart) and now Mark Howe.

Howe is the first Flyer player to have his number retired who didn't win a Cup, though. I have a feeling we'll see a few more in the next few decades...

I think Hextall is a prime candidate and, of course, I'd advocate for JLC :-)

Rad- you really need to watch that video again. Lucic loses control of the puck and is in full speed pursuit. Miller comes out to try and get the puck first- and does. He quickly flips the puck to the boards- just as Lucic gets there and gets nailed. To me its a completely legit hockey play.

I scrolled up and rewatched several times before posting.

Lucic clearly is pursuing the puck as he crosses the blue line. As he nears Miller (before the top of the circle, with Miller approaching the dot) he moves his stick to the left - away from the puck - and clearly slams directly into Miller.

He even stops moving his skates.

He is not pursuing the puck at that point - he's lining Miller up from the top of the circle to the dot.

It's a legit hockey play on *any player but the goalie* because Lucic knows damn well that he's not going to take a hit from Miller. He knows that Miller's not going to attempt to do anything like stickhandle - he's simply going to clear the puck aside.

Lucic doesn't even follow the puck AFTER MILLER HITS IT - he's STILL looking at Miller on the ice with the puck near the boards BEHIND HIM.

If Lucic comes in with his stick on the ice hoping for a Miller whiff on the puck, that's one thing.

He's not. He'd clearly given up on puck pursuit and clearly, IMO, intended to hit Miller..

We're getting into split-second, freeze-frame territory here aren't we? This stuff is happening pdq. And I'm not so sure it was a penalty had it been 2 skaters.

Miller dumps the puck just before Lucic is on top of him; "Miller didn't have the puck" isn't a compelling argument in this case. He did have the puck, literally a split-second before the hit.

Did Lucic know he wouldn't get there in time to prevent Miller dumping it? Sure, I'll bet he did. Lucic wanted to hit Miller, simple as that. With all the scrapping those 2 were doing the whole game it's understandable. And let's face it Miller has always had an "active stick." He's good at bringing out the nasty in defenders and then complaining about it after the game.

Maybe this was beyond "incidental" but it was close. If that had been 2 skaters going for the puck I really doubt anything would've been called.

It's a fast game. That's the whole point. But, everyone knows how fast it is - including the players.

Lucic knew he wasn't going to get to the puck and he took the opportunity to take a shot at Miller.

If it had been a defenseman? An interesting question. I don't think that any part of the play happens the same way. A defenseman would be expected to be able to either play or possess and move the puck or deliver a hit right back and Lucic would have to play that - or at least acknowledge that - when it's quite clear that a goalie (Miller) won't be doing anything but clearing the puck.

Look at Lucic's stick - is this a guy who is playing for the puck if Miller whiffs on the pass? No. Lucic has lined Miller up "long before" (in split second terms) he gets there.

Shanahan may have said that Lucic didn't "intend" to hit Miller - but if he didn't, I'm not sure what else he was "intending" to do.