About Hot Dogging...and other immature antics...

[Dobber]

Those looooong-time DobberHockey visitors may remember by little rant about Ilya Kovalchuk\'s hot dogging - and how I approved, nay, endorsed it!

Nothing entertains the fan more than a beautiful goal...unless it\'s a beautiful goal followed by a player riding his stick down the ice like a horse.

Piss the other team off? Great - isn\'t that the idea?

Give the other team motivation to beat you? Doesn\'t matter - as long as you piss them off.

Worried that they will \"rub it in\" even more when they eventually turn the tables? Who cares - that\'s what trash talking in fantasy hockey is all about.

Enough with the pretend \"code\". Enough with \"political correctness\". Show off! Hot dog! Think outside the box! Whatever it takes to win and whatever it takes to get under the other team\'s skin - do it!

I love Sean Avery. What he did to Martin Brodeur was nothing short of hilarious. It was creative and clever and gave them a goal and probably a win, which may eventually lead to a series win. \"Immature\" and \"disgusting\" have been bandied about in the media, but c\'mon - grow some balls people! That was great! Sure, the NHL made it against the rules NOW, but don\'t let that stop you from trying new (and \"immature\&quot things in an effort to win!

Roger Nielson\'s team was once down two men with minutes left in a game he was coaching. He needed to give his players a rest. So he sent out a fourth player. The ref whistled the play dead and gave him a too-many-men penalty. But he was already down two men so it cost him NOTHING. So, after 30 seconds, he sent an extra guy out again. Again, a penalty. BRILLIANT! Outside the box! Immature? Breaking the code? YES, but brilliant. The league immediately changed the rules. Now a penalty shot is awarded if that happens.

Neilson also put a defenceman in net instead of a goalie during a penalty shot, so the defenceman could rush the attacker and cut down the latter\'s angle of shot, greatly reducing the chances of a goal. Today the rule states that a team must use a goalie in net for a penalty shot.

My point is - don\'t suck the excitement out of the game by decrying hot dogging, and don\'t be a baby and say \"no fair\" when someone tries something new.

Waah Waah Waah! I thought this was a man\'s sport?

I\'m still waiting for the coach who decides to stick a 5-5, 450-pound man in net. Or the player who shoots the puck into the net after every whistle on purpose just to piss the other team off.

FORCE the league to make new rules just because of you. I\'ve always said that if I were the GM, I would sign a star player for $2 million a year for cap reasons...and then quietly whisper in his ear to take up gardening at his new house. When he goes back to dig in his garden, a mysterious chest filled with another $5 million would be buried in it. He makes his $7 million...my cap hit remains $2 million.

Think outside the box!

B)

[Crazynuck]

In vancouver\'s case thinking outside the box would be to take your old idea of buying out the best scouts from other teams and forming an uberscout team.

[Dobber]

Crazynuck wrote:

In vancouver\'s case thinking outside the box would be to take your old idea of buying out the best scouts from other teams and forming an uberscout team.

Good thought - guys, FYI that idea can be found here:

LINK

[rwthompson]

My ultimate \"outside the box\" idea is to sign a young star to a front loaded contract for say, 100 years. You start off with the league maximum, then by year 20 or so, it starts going down to the league minimum - but who cares, after they retire, you won\'t have to pay them.

If you did this, with today\'s information:
Years 1-20 = $200M
Years 20-100 = $40M

Total contact - $240M
Cap hit - $240M/100 = $2.4M/year.

[fzusher]

To me, Scott Gomez\' empty netter at the end of the Wednesday game - insisting on a face off at center ice and then letting Madden win the faceoff to put the puck in his own empty net - was as much innovative and brilliant as Avery\'s goalie screening techniques. Granted, i only started watching North American Hockey in 2002 so this may be an old trick revived (i\'d never seen it before), but then people on TSN were saying what Avery did is common practice in beer-league hockey ...

i\'m still waiting for the league to put a rule that outlaws that as well, since it\'s too innovative to be allowed ...

At then end of the day, if the league wants to create a buzz in the US they have to get into the ESPN highlight reels and not for fighting, and that will only happen through with creative, outside the box stuff or with showoffy goals - Todd Marchant or Dallas Drake may win you a ring, but nobody in the US will see you celebrate it without the Nashes, Toews\', Sam Gagners and Kovalchuks.

[fzusher]

rwthompson wrote:

My ultimate \"outside the box\" idea is to sign a young star to a front loaded contract for say, 100 years. You start off with the league maximum, then by year 20 or so, it starts going down to the league minimum - but who cares, after they retire, you won\'t have to pay them.

If you did this, with today\'s information:
Years 1-20 = $200M
Years 20-100 = $40M

Total contact - $240M
Cap hit - $240M/100 = $2.4M/year.

Summer 08 - Burke signed as Leafs GM
Summer 10 - Burke signs Sam Gagner to a 100 year, 240M, front loaded offer sheet. Revenge is sweet. :silly:

[Crazynuck]

fzusher wrote:

To me, Scott Gomez\' empty netter at the end of the Wednesday game - insisting on a face off at center ice and then letting Madden win the faceoff to put the puck in his own empty net - was as much innovative and brilliant as Avery\'s goalie screening techniques. Granted, i only started watching North American Hockey in 2002 so this may be an old trick revived (i\'d never seen it before), but then people on TSN were saying what Avery did is common practice in beer-league hockey ...

i\'m still waiting for the league to put a rule that outlaws that as well, since it\'s too innovative to be allowed ...

At then end of the day, if the league wants to create a buzz in the US they have to get into the ESPN highlight reels and not for fighting, and that will only happen through with creative, outside the box stuff or with showoffy goals - Todd Marchant or Dallas Drake may win you a ring, but nobody in the US will see you celebrate it without the Nashes, Toews\', Sam Gagners and Kovalchuks.

I missed the game... what did Gomez do?
Madden scored on his own net from center ice and Gomez got cretit for the goal?

[Dobber]

rwthompson wrote:

My ultimate \"outside the box\" idea is to sign a young star to a front loaded contract for say, 100 years. You start off with the league maximum, then by year 20 or so, it starts going down to the league minimum - but who cares, after they retire, you won\'t have to pay them.

If you did this, with today\'s information:
Years 1-20 = $200M
Years 20-100 = $40M

Total contact - $240M
Cap hit - $240M/100 = $2.4M/year.

That\'s a good idea! Although, I believe retirement does not excuse you from the cap hit. But this is a good framework to be creative with something.

[fzusher]

Crazynuck wrote:

fzusher wrote:

To me, Scott Gomez\' empty netter at the end of the Wednesday game - insisting on a face off at center ice and then letting Madden win the faceoff to put the puck in his own empty net - was as much innovative and brilliant as Avery\'s goalie screening techniques. Granted, i only started watching North American Hockey in 2002 so this may be an old trick revived (i\'d never seen it before), but then people on TSN were saying what Avery did is common practice in beer-league hockey ...

i\'m still waiting for the league to put a rule that outlaws that as well, since it\'s too innovative to be allowed ...

At then end of the day, if the league wants to create a buzz in the US they have to get into the ESPN highlight reels and not for fighting, and that will only happen through with creative, outside the box stuff or with showoffy goals - Todd Marchant or Dallas Drake may win you a ring, but nobody in the US will see you celebrate it without the Nashes, Toews\', Sam Gagners and Kovalchuks.

I missed the game... what did Gomez do?
Madden scored on his own net from center ice and Gomez got cretit for the goal?

http://www.yardbarker.com/nhl/articl...ff_Goal/240944

I first saw it on TSN, who had the third angle in this clip where it looks like Madden hits it, and that\'s how they called it. The clip is from MSGTV and they immediately called it as a deflected Gomez shot, but it\'s hard to conclusively see that even from the second angle, which TSN didn\'t have. And I really don\'t see the puck bouncing or changing direction, so I doubt the deflection suggestion.

[rwthompson]

Dobber wrote:

That\'s a good idea! Although, I believe retirement does not excuse you from the cap hit. But this is a good framework to be creative with something.[/quote]

Even if it doesn\'t - you\'d be long fired and enjoyed the success the move.

[fzusher]

Dobber wrote:

rwthompson wrote:

My ultimate \"outside the box\" idea is to sign a young star to a front loaded contract for say, 100 years. You start off with the league maximum, then by year 20 or so, it starts going down to the league minimum - but who cares, after they retire, you won\'t have to pay them.

If you did this, with today\'s information:
Years 1-20 = $200M
Years 20-100 = $40M

Total contact - $240M
Cap hit - $240M/100 = $2.4M/year.

That\'s a good idea! Although, I believe retirement does not excuse you from the cap hit. But this is a good framework to be creative with something.

I think a retired players\' salary counts against the cap in one of two circumstances:

1) If the contract was signed when they were 35 or older (that\'s why Scottie Niedermayer wouldn\'t count against the cap if he retired for real, but Mathieu Schneider, for example, would; this is also why Garth Snow was still on the Isles cap this year. this rule, btw, also applies to demotions to the minors).
2) If the team chooses to pay the player the remainder of their contract (that\'s why Keith Primeau was still on the Flyers\' cap this year).

[Cartman]

Early retirement does. I think the age is 35. Like when Nieds \"retired\", the Ducks were off teh hook for his salary. If he retires after he turned 35 (I think) then the team is left on the hook (cap hit) for the remaining years. The player in that example could \"retire\" at 34.

[Crazynuck]

Thx Fzusher

[fzusher]

Cartman wrote:

Early retirement does. I think the age is 35. Like when Nieds \"retired\", the Ducks were off teh hook for his salary. If he retires after he turned 35 (I think) then the team is left on the hook (cap hit) for the remaining years. The player in that example could \"retire\" at 34.

what matters is not whether they were 35 when they retire but whether they were 35 when they signed the contract.

[FlyersJoe]

Sorry. I do not agree with the analogy between innovative ideas and what Avery did.
First. This is not the type of ESPN highlight that will endear new fans to the great sport of hockey. Hockey is already the butt of jokes all over sports radio in the US. This just gives them more material, as heard a couple days ago on SportsRadio in LA \"..common sense doesn\'t rule in the NHL..\"
Second. If I were to win the Stanley Cup due to a teammate doing something like that, it would tarnish the heart and soul it took to get me there. Apparently Drury feels the same way. Another example, \'72 Summit Series is never mentioned without Clarke\'s slash. I\'ve heard Clarkie say there are players from that Canadien team that feel the win is tarnished by the incident.
Third. In Avery\'s case the rules were not changed. If this were a regular season game, imo, a penalty would have been called. Due to the nature of a playoff game, the ref was unsure at the time of the incident. He was probably asking himself, \"How did this guy get to the NHL? Do I get paid extra for babysitting?\" After the initial incident, the ref warned that he would call an unsportsmanlike penalty if it occurred again. The NHL later clarified that indeed an unsportsmanlike penalty could be called for such antics.
Last. Forcing new rules. When rules are first put in place whether in a sport, game, or even in society, the rules are scripted with the basic assumption that they will be followed by a certain level of sportsmanship or under the good nature they are intended. But as we have scene in all walks of life, we have jackasses everywhere that have to be govern by an even stricter set of rules or laws. It\'s sad when it reaches any of our great professional sports. I designed a rather complex fantasy league. I have many rules governing what you can or cannot do. Just when I thought I had everything covered without going beyond common sense, I\'ll have one jackass that won\'t manage under as the rules are intended, so I have to continue to add new rules and penalties to cover certain antics that can occur. It\'s always one guy that will force these changes and he\'s also the guy that complains \"there\'s too many rules\"..when half the rules created are a direct result to his antics. These guys are just ignorant in any walk of life.
I\'d rather see players forcing rule changes such as lowering the Baseball pitching mound or limiting the PP to one goal, which are a tribute to one\'s dominance in a sport...not one\'s ignorance.
I am not a sports purist and believe rules should adapt to the play of the game and I love the violence aspect of all sports. Did I think Avery\'s stunt was funny. Yes. Avery is a clown and he is a good villain for the fans of any opposing team to rain down their boos upon; that\'s great for the sport. But the antics were also an embarrassment and I don\'t think it takes a pair of balls to like and condone what Avery did. In fact, a real man of sports would tell Avery to leave his skirt at home.



Peace
Go Flyers

[img size=160]http://www.dobberhockey.com/images/fbfiles/images/averyHit.png[/img]