Posted November 19, 20159 yr comment_169812 @globalwinnipeg: NHL to play 3-on-3 All-Star tournament instead of a traditional All-Star game https://t.co/SGz3F70VFPhttps://t.co/LDd1klQyPD
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169816 @globalwinnipeg: NHL to play 3-on-3 All-Star tournament instead of a traditional All-Star game https://t.co/SGz3F70VFPhttps://t.co/LDd1klQyPD Yeah heard that this morning, maybe they should have gone 5/5 first period, 4/4 second and 3/3 third. Or they could just make the goals bigger
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169823 It's mostly a good idea. Sounds exciting, but sure is tough to pick a team and include one from every team. The part I don't like? $1 million will be divided amongst the winning team. Like really? 10-11 players will split it? Give the damn money to 4 charities, one for each division.
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169824 The point of the million is to put something on the line for the players so the game means something and they actually try. However, it would be nice if the players stepped up and decided to donate it themselves.
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169829 The point of the million is to put something on the line for the players so the game means something and they actually try. However, it would be nice if the players stepped up and decided to donate it themselves. So, they're chosen as all stars, and can't find the oomph to try and win the game for the charity of their choice, in what will be a fun game of 3 on 3? Was there money involved in the all-star games before? Other than to their pensions? Money shouldn't be the incentive. But that's just me.
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169841 The point of the million is to put something on the line for the players so the game means something and they actually try. However, it would be nice if the players stepped up and decided to donate it themselves. So, they're chosen as all stars, and can't find the oomph to try and win the game for the charity of their choice, in what will be a fun game of 3 on 3? Was there money involved in the all-star games before? Other than to their pensions? Money shouldn't be the incentive. But that's just me. No money wasn't involved before. Not even to their pensions. No one gets paid for it, it is something they have to do per their contracts. I'm pretty sure they get a bunch of "gifts" and shwag throughout the weekend, but I don't believe there was any money prior to this year. Have you watched an all star game recently? You can talk about what they "should" do but they don't. It is boring hockey because it is a meaningless game and no one wants to get hurt in a meaningless game. And even with money on the line, it probably will still not change anything. But you asked why not give the money to charity, and the rational for the money was to put something on the line for the players so they "try". Truth be told I wouldn't care if they cancelled the all star game all together. Probably won't watch it regardless,
November 19, 20159 yr Author comment_169844 If $90,000 for one afternoon doesn't inspire them to try hard, their WAGS eyeing the prize just might.
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169846 The thing is, these guys would all be the all stars and the highest paid in the league. Money is all relative. So even if we go at the low end for the top players and say they pull in $5M. Thats 2% of their annual salary. Then take half away for taxes. So yeah, it is some nice pocket change for them but is it really going to make a difference? They still aren't going to want to get hurt.
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169849 Have you watched an all star game recently? You can talk about what they "should" do but they don't. It is boring hockey because it is a meaningless game and no one wants to get hurt in a meaningless game. And even with money on the line, it probably will still not change anything. But you asked why not give the money to charity, and the rational for the money was to put something on the line for the players so they "try". Truth be told I wouldn't care if they cancelled the all star game all together. Probably won't watch it regardless, I'm not advocating anything. The money was mentioned in a game segment. Of course these guys don't want to get hurt, but this is going to be in a "fun" format - 3 on 3. All I saying is if there is money involved, give it to charity, the players certainly don't need it. I don't watch these games. They don't interest me. They can scrap them for all I care or better yet have them play table-top hockey. They probably would prefer to be named to an all-star team, get stinkin badges, and have the weekend off.
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169850 I'd hate to see Wheeler get hurt in a meaningless game. Perhaps the answer is to have a game at the end of the season or something.
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169958 I would rather see them get a week off to heal up for the stretch run. Be better to see these guys at there best in games that really matter.
November 19, 20159 yr comment_169964 The point of the million is to put something on the line for the players so the game means something and they actually try. However, it would be nice if the players stepped up and decided to donate it themselves. So, they're chosen as all stars, and can't find the oomph to try and win the game for the charity of their choice, in what will be a fun game of 3 on 3? Was there money involved in the all-star games before? Other than to their pensions? Money shouldn't be the incentive. But that's just me. No money wasn't involved before. Not even to their pensions. No one gets paid for it, it is something they have to do per their contracts. I'm pretty sure they get a bunch of "gifts" and shwag throughout the weekend, but I don't believe there was any money prior to this year. Have you watched an all star game recently? You can talk about what they "should" do but they don't. It is boring hockey because it is a meaningless game and no one wants to get hurt in a meaningless game. And even with money on the line, it probably will still not change anything. But you asked why not give the money to charity, and the rational for the money was to put something on the line for the players so they "try". Truth be told I wouldn't care if they cancelled the all star game all together. Probably won't watch it regardless, How about instead of money, the losing players have to waive their no-trade clauses? Or the winning players get to add to the losing players lists of where they would agree to play if traded? I'm thinking I'd see a lot of hustle out there :-)
_4ce1be.png)
_4ccb55.png)
_b2ed7a.png)
Create an account or sign in to comment