This is a joke. What you are saying is that the NHL is about making money and could care less about it’s player.  I have an idea for you, how about you sign a TV deal that will let your game be shown on real TV or try promoting the cup winners more than Cindy Crosbaby. I’m sorry but the Red Wings have more important things to worry about than getting more corporate ass kissers into one building.

Like the best coach in the NHL said, “We (Red Wings) are in business of winning”. But that’s just how we roll bitches.

Posted by YYZerman on 01/26/09 at 11:32 PM ET

Stupid, stupid, stupid.  The NHL isn’t the NFL or NBA, and never will be.  Deal.

Expansion has killed this game, or at least mortally wounded it.  Dilute the talent pool, and you wind up with a farce of an ASG and an interminable season that could probably stand to be ten or so games shorter; hence the “epidemic” of players skipping Napoleon’s, I mean, Bettman’s nationally televised cartoon hockey game.  TGA. 

And salary caps are for weenies- if you can’t make the gate, you probably should be promoting NASCAR.  Or bowling.  Or golf.  Or frigging Atlanta Braves games, for pete’s sake.

Of course, I’m a Wings fan, so who gives a shit what I think?

Posted by mudshark from Divetown, Colorado on 01/26/09 at 11:33 PM ET

Gee, it sure is “BAAAAAAW!” around here.

Posted by Michael Turner from Columbus, OH on 01/26/09 at 11:40 PM ET

Here’s the comment I posted over at Puck Daddy…

Just a few questions:

If the rule was made crystal clear to everyone in February 2008, why did it rear its head so late in the process before this year’s ASG? Why, as of Thursday, January 22, 2009, was it first leaked to selected MSM and then confirmed that the commissioner of a major professional sports league MIGHT decide to suspend certain players who did not attend the ASG due to injury?

Further, why was and is there still so much confusion regarding this “clear-cut” rule? For example...late last week, many people—including some who now champion this incredible rule—were wondering things like, “Will there be any suspensions?” “Who will be suspended?” “Why was it claimed that a star goaltender was suspended last year when he skipped the ASG for personal reasons but played in the games both before and afterward?” “Why were two players informed they would be replacements several days before two other players officially withdrew based on injuries?” “If it’s “not a suspension,” then why do the players have to sit out a game?”

Also, in light of the existence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for the individuals subject to non-suspension…
Why did one player facing the possibility of “non-suspension” receive personal direction from the league commissioner that to avoid said non-suspension, he had better be in Montreal on Friday ready to schmooze, not Saturday, as said player stated he had originally planned? Conversely, why did two other players not receive similar, personalized attention? Why are some non-attendees receiving non-suspensions but not others—including a goaltender who played in back-to-back games prior to the ASG festivities in spite of a “bad back” and another individual who freely admitted he is not injured and basically didn’t want to participate in the preliminary (i.e., less prestigious) exhibition game two years in a row? Why would a member of league management attempt to deny the culpability of these individuals with comments along the lines of “that isn’t even a real game” and “they’re just kids, they shouldn’t have to carry the full load yet?” If these individuals are members of the union covered by the CBA, why should they be exempt from mandatory participation while others—including those with significantly longer and highly honored terms of service—are not? Isn’t one of the major points of having a CBA to help ensure fair and equal treatment of all covered employees? Why is there no process by which to appeal the non-suspensions? By apparently providing differentiated and arguably favorable treatment under the rules of the CBA for selected employees, is league management engaging in unfair labor practices?

I have a feeling we’ll be waiting a long time for satisfactory answers.

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 01/27/09 at 01:06 AM ET

The rule was made Crystal Clear to everyone?  Under which part of the NHL rules that, by the way, don’t make it public, was it kept?  The same place that they keep rules regarding Homer’s ass disallowing goals because Turco and MAF can’t stop j*z of overhyped athletes from hitting the backs of their throats?

Posted by Sullyosis from A hateful lair in Post Apocalyptic US (or Arizona) on 01/27/09 at 01:39 AM ET

I am a hockey fan.  I dont care about how much money hockey makes.  I wish I didnt even have to know about that aspect of the business behind the game.

Unfortunately I do.  The business of hockey can take away my game at the NHL level for a year.  It has already done that.  That scares me.

Any decision that is not a hockey decision, but rather a business of hockey (marketing etc) decision that impacts the quality of the actual hockey being played is a bad decision. 

Two star players are suspended tonight because they missed a bad exhibition hockey game.  These players were hurt and benefitted from the weekend off.  It didn’t hurt the quality of hockey in the all star game one bit (that is always the lowest quality hockey game of the season), but it does hurt the quality of the Detroit/Columbus game tonight.

Marketing decision are hurting a real NHL game.  That sucks.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 01/27/09 at 05:08 AM ET

If the “rule was made clear” last season, why didn’t Datsyuk, Lidstrom, or Ken Holland--or Sidney Crosby--find out that the “understanding” became a “rule” until Friday?

This ideological war between those who believe that the suspension was justified and the members of Red Wing nation just isn’t going to end.  We Wings fans believe that the ruling was simply made to “make an example” of the Red Wings, and those who don’t feel that way are certainly entitled to their opinions, and I respect your points of view…

But I’m not going to stop believing what I believe, regardless of how thoughtful and thorough arguments to the contrary are made.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 01/27/09 at 08:18 AM ET

Wrong. Next topic.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 01/27/09 at 08:33 AM ET