Hawkey Tawk (where we rant of Leafs, ownership and head shots)
I know. I haven't talked much about hockey here in a long time. It's not that I don't still pay attention to it or watch it, 'cause I do. But the thing is I'm no longer a fan of the hometown team, and the hometown team is what everything is devoted to, so it's more difficult for me to talk about my favourite team as I don't get to see them play often. I finally understand what it means to be a complete outsider in the midst of Leaf Nation...
This past Saturday I actually found myself hoping that the Buffalo Sabres would win and therefore once and for all crush the playoff hopes of the Leafs for this season, meaning I wouldn't have to listen to the 'well they can still mathematically make the playoffs!' talk anymore. But no, the Leafs actually won and so it will go on and on longer. If they do make the playoffs, good on 'em, but I doubt it'll be a pretty run and so probably for the best if they just don't.
Also speaking of the Leafs, the faceless corporation of the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan is looking to divest themselves of their majority ownership of the Leafs and the equally faceless corporation of Rogers Inc. is the current leader to buy this majority ownership. Oh joy. Rogers already owns the Toronto Blue Jays, so they'd really have a monopoly on Toronto sports teams if they get the majority of MLSE (who also own the Raptors and TorontoFC). Would Rogers be better ownership for the Leafs than OTPP? Probably not. It's still a business who is interested in the wonderful bottom line the Leafs can give them; a wonderful bottom line that is always good even if the on-ice product sucks. Still no reason to invest in the on-ice product very much. And Rogers basically owns TSN and whatnot. What would their ownership of the Leafs mean for the much-loved institution of Hockey Night In Canada every Saturday on the CBC? No more Leafs? Losing your largest market is not a good thing at all. I wonder why Mr. RIM (Jim Balsille) hasn't thrown his hat in there. Is he just afraid he will be shot down yet again? Most likely. But really, the man so desperately wants to own a hockey team. He could have a chance to own the LEAFS! He has the money to do it. I kinda wish he'd get in there, just to see what would happen...
The past week in hockey has been dominated by the devestating hit by Boston's Zdeno Chara on Montreal's Max Pacioretty. It was an ugly hit with Pacioretty's head bouncing off the turnbuckle by the benches. I will say only this in Chara's defense... the man is huge, and nearly any hit perpetrated by him looks ugly. But in this case, I don't think it was that innocent, there seemed to be a lot of guiding of Pacioretty's head towards the boards and really, it's an area of the rink that the players should know poses a danger. But that didn't seem to enter much into Chara's mind. So of course, once again, the fans (well Montreal fans) are screaming bloody murder, the media (who don't regularly pay attention to hockey) are labelling it as a blood sport again, Bettman and his cronies aren't really doing anything (Chara was given no further disciplenary action for the hit other than the penalties he received in game) and the star players who are already out due to concussions (hello there Sidney, I do hope you can come out and play again) are STILL calling for something to be done about the proliferation of head hits and concussions the NHL seems to be plagued with of late. Can anything be done? It's hard to say. The physics of the whole thing can probably be boiled down to the players are bigger, stronger, faster, better conditioned and the ice surfaces are too small to really contain them, so players will be hurt. Those who are opposed to a zero tolerance stance on head hits say it will dilute the game's physicality, take an intergral piece of what makes hockey hockey out of the equation. But the thing is, the prime pieces of what makes hockey hockey are the players. And when a player of the calibre of Sidney Crosby sits out for 29(!) games due to a concussion... don't you see that there could be a problem? Do the players themselves and the NHL brass really want to dilute their overall product by damaging the players so and having no repurcussions to such things? I find it mind boggling to think so. I'm not advocating taking hitting (or even fighting though I do think that aspect of the sport should go away) out of the game, but I do advocate the players need to think about what they're doing more than it appears they do. I guess I look at it like the following; in the real world, if you commit a crime, and in the perpetration of the crime someone is mudered during this crime, even though you did not INTEND for anyone to be killed, you are guilty of felony murder. Most interpretations of this law require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. If you ask me, this law could be quite beautifully adapted to the NHL. If a player perpetrates a hit on a player, even if they didn't INTEND for the player to be hurt, but they are still making an inherently dangerous hit (like Chara's on Pacioretty) and the player on the receiving end is badly hurt, then an automatic suspension should be handed down. I'm not even saying it has to be a long one, but an automatic one. Something that would make the players think, just for a fraction longer than they do, that if they hit that player as he is, with his head down, or his back to you, or if he's at a bad place along the boards... that you might badly hurt them when you do. Because it seems they do need to have that one second more of thought before they charge in there.
This past Saturday I actually found myself hoping that the Buffalo Sabres would win and therefore once and for all crush the playoff hopes of the Leafs for this season, meaning I wouldn't have to listen to the 'well they can still mathematically make the playoffs!' talk anymore. But no, the Leafs actually won and so it will go on and on longer. If they do make the playoffs, good on 'em, but I doubt it'll be a pretty run and so probably for the best if they just don't.
Also speaking of the Leafs, the faceless corporation of the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan is looking to divest themselves of their majority ownership of the Leafs and the equally faceless corporation of Rogers Inc. is the current leader to buy this majority ownership. Oh joy. Rogers already owns the Toronto Blue Jays, so they'd really have a monopoly on Toronto sports teams if they get the majority of MLSE (who also own the Raptors and TorontoFC). Would Rogers be better ownership for the Leafs than OTPP? Probably not. It's still a business who is interested in the wonderful bottom line the Leafs can give them; a wonderful bottom line that is always good even if the on-ice product sucks. Still no reason to invest in the on-ice product very much. And Rogers basically owns TSN and whatnot. What would their ownership of the Leafs mean for the much-loved institution of Hockey Night In Canada every Saturday on the CBC? No more Leafs? Losing your largest market is not a good thing at all. I wonder why Mr. RIM (Jim Balsille) hasn't thrown his hat in there. Is he just afraid he will be shot down yet again? Most likely. But really, the man so desperately wants to own a hockey team. He could have a chance to own the LEAFS! He has the money to do it. I kinda wish he'd get in there, just to see what would happen...
The past week in hockey has been dominated by the devestating hit by Boston's Zdeno Chara on Montreal's Max Pacioretty. It was an ugly hit with Pacioretty's head bouncing off the turnbuckle by the benches. I will say only this in Chara's defense... the man is huge, and nearly any hit perpetrated by him looks ugly. But in this case, I don't think it was that innocent, there seemed to be a lot of guiding of Pacioretty's head towards the boards and really, it's an area of the rink that the players should know poses a danger. But that didn't seem to enter much into Chara's mind. So of course, once again, the fans (well Montreal fans) are screaming bloody murder, the media (who don't regularly pay attention to hockey) are labelling it as a blood sport again, Bettman and his cronies aren't really doing anything (Chara was given no further disciplenary action for the hit other than the penalties he received in game) and the star players who are already out due to concussions (hello there Sidney, I do hope you can come out and play again) are STILL calling for something to be done about the proliferation of head hits and concussions the NHL seems to be plagued with of late. Can anything be done? It's hard to say. The physics of the whole thing can probably be boiled down to the players are bigger, stronger, faster, better conditioned and the ice surfaces are too small to really contain them, so players will be hurt. Those who are opposed to a zero tolerance stance on head hits say it will dilute the game's physicality, take an intergral piece of what makes hockey hockey out of the equation. But the thing is, the prime pieces of what makes hockey hockey are the players. And when a player of the calibre of Sidney Crosby sits out for 29(!) games due to a concussion... don't you see that there could be a problem? Do the players themselves and the NHL brass really want to dilute their overall product by damaging the players so and having no repurcussions to such things? I find it mind boggling to think so. I'm not advocating taking hitting (or even fighting though I do think that aspect of the sport should go away) out of the game, but I do advocate the players need to think about what they're doing more than it appears they do. I guess I look at it like the following; in the real world, if you commit a crime, and in the perpetration of the crime someone is mudered during this crime, even though you did not INTEND for anyone to be killed, you are guilty of felony murder. Most interpretations of this law require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. If you ask me, this law could be quite beautifully adapted to the NHL. If a player perpetrates a hit on a player, even if they didn't INTEND for the player to be hurt, but they are still making an inherently dangerous hit (like Chara's on Pacioretty) and the player on the receiving end is badly hurt, then an automatic suspension should be handed down. I'm not even saying it has to be a long one, but an automatic one. Something that would make the players think, just for a fraction longer than they do, that if they hit that player as he is, with his head down, or his back to you, or if he's at a bad place along the boards... that you might badly hurt them when you do. Because it seems they do need to have that one second more of thought before they charge in there.