"If a player is a repeat offender during that season, the fine to the team would double," wrote Lemieux.

Also states penguins under this plan would have been fined 600k this season.

----------------I hate this idea.Why don't we just throw the salary cap out while we're at it? Only teams with money will be able to afford a "dirtbag cheapshot" Does the league fine itself if the Coyotes get in trouble?Will the Islanders be dissolved?

Do poor teams get lesser penalties now?

You want to penalize teams for rough play? take a point away for any offense deserving a 5+ game suspension (but this could be argued too).

Hey, Mario, I have a suggestion since all of a sudden you're so concerned about player safety.

Since eight per cent of the concussions in the league this year have been caused by fights, how about we make it so that an instigator penalty in the last minute of a Stanley Cup final game is an automatic one game suspension, no matter how many points that player has in the regular season? I'll hang up and listen.

In all honesty, I like the suggestion. Teams should be accountable for the actions of the players they put on the ice. But I hope Mario is just as committed the next three times Matt Cooke gets suspended, if this system is ever enacted.

Ha ha, that's actually probably true. To be fair though, a lot of the guys just send representatives anyway.

I like the idea, just wondering how much of an impact it would actually have.

Not sure what the comment above relating to only rich teams being able to afford enforcers or afford to play a rough/physical game. You can enforce and play rough, within the rules of the game. If teams actually intend to go out and hurt people and incur suspensions on purpose, then I think the problem is bigger than we all think.

Ha ha, that's actually probably true. To be fair though, a lot of the guys just send representatives anyway.

I like the idea, just wondering how much of an impact it would actually have.

Not sure what the comment above relating to only rich teams being able to afford enforcers or afford to play a rough/physical game. You can enforce and play rough, within the rules of the game. If teams actually intend to go out and hurt people and incur suspensions on purpose, then I think the problem is bigger than we all think.

Really? I would say that fights "rarely" if "ever" lead to suspensions. Quite a bit different than "often."

I bet if you did an analysis that took "x" number of fights so far this year and how many of those fights resulted in suspensions, you'd probalby end up somewhere very close to 1-2%, probably lower.

I think a suspendable act will often lead to a fight because of what the person did, but that's completely different and actually makes the argument that you want enforcers around to deter suspendable acts.

Really? I would say that fights "rarely" if "ever" lead to suspensions. Quite a bit different than "often."

I bet if you did an analysis that took "x" number of fights so far this year and how many of those fights resulted in suspensions, you'd probalby end up somewhere very close to 1-2%, probably lower.

I think a suspendable act will often lead to a fight because of what the person did, but that's completely different and actually makes the argument that you want enforcers around to deter suspendable acts.

On the ice, Mario was an extremely talented player. In the owner's box, he's a little b*tch, with little b*tch suggestions, leading a team that includes such upstanding individuals as Matt Cooke. Somehow I doubt Mario has ever ventured down to give Mr. Cooke a good talking-to. He only gets ticked when one of his own players gets hurt; he couldn't care less when a goon on his own team brains someone else.

Piss off, Mario. I'm starting to like the other Lemieux more than I like you.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make though. Let's take those players as examples:

- Cooke - suspended for hitting from behind - Gillies - suspended for head shots, two separate times - Shelley - suspended for hit from behind and for sucker punch - Godard - suspended for leaving the bench to fight - Rypien - suspended for altercation with fan - Kostopoulos - suspended for head shot

I think the idea is that you'd try and get the teams to influence their players not to engage in this type of activity. I doubt you'd have many teams have issue with trying to ensure it's players don't: hit from behind, deliver head shots, sucker punch people or fight with fans. It's a tough sport and sometimes things happen so fast it is tough to avoid, but a lot of the times, it's the matter of making a good decision rather than sucker punching someone or purposely take a shot at someone's head, etc.

On the ice, Mario was an extremely talented player. In the owner's box, he's a little b*tch, with little b*tch suggestions, leading a team that includes such upstanding individuals as Matt Cooke. Somehow I doubt Mario has ever ventured down to give Mr. Cooke a good talking-to. He only gets ticked when one of his own players gets hurt; he couldn't care less when a goon on his own team brains someone else.

Piss off, Mario. I'm starting to like the other Lemieux more than I like you.

I actually disliked Mario more as a player than I do now. Perhaps that's just because you don't hear from him as much anymore.

Anyway, I have no issue with Mario's comments or the fact that he employs Cooke. Maybe it took having one, or a few of his players get injured for him to notice, but so what, isn't that natural? You should not though, when Cooke hit Savard, it was legal, but wasn't ignored, a new rule was made......gotta wonder why it only became an issue when Savard got hit though and not when Richards hit Booth (I think it was Booth). Cooke seems to have a changed a bit in that regard though....since the new rule, I don't think Cooke has delivered any head shots. I think he's still an idiot and plays on the edge and gets dirty every now and then, but that shouldn't stop Mario from suggesting teams shoudl be fined to go along with suspensions.

For all we know, Cooke gets chewed out all the time by his coach, GM, etc. The problem is, he is an effective player and you live with the fact that he may take it over the edge every now and then. You try to do your best to make sure he doesn't go over the edge, but incidents will occur from time to time.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make though. Let's take those players as examples:

- Cooke - suspended for hitting from behind - Gillies - suspended for head shots, two separate times - Shelley - suspended for hit from behind and for sucker punch - Godard - suspended for leaving the bench to fight - Rypien - suspended for altercation with fan - Kostopoulos - suspended for head shot

I think the idea is that you'd try and get the teams to influence their players not to engage in this type of activity. I doubt you'd have many teams have issue with trying to ensure it's players don't: hit from behind, deliver head shots, sucker punch people or fight with fans. It's a tough sport and sometimes things happen so fast it is tough to avoid, but a lot of the times, it's the matter of making a good decision rather than sucker punching someone or purposely take a shot at someone's head, etc.

You didn't answer my question. You had an issue with me saying enforcers would become essentially a luxury for teams with money. Are those not players you would consider enforcers (in general)?

My point was less about fighting and more about players considered enforcers. The term goon might fit as well.

You didn't answer my question. You had an issue with me saying enforcers would become essentially a luxury for teams with money. Are those not players you would consider enforcers (in general)?

My point was less about fighting and more about players considered enforcers. The term goon might fit as well.

I think he answered your question pretty well, to be honest. The majority of suspensions may be handed out to enforcers, but not for fighting. Teams could still employ enforcers, just not the ones who are going to make boneheaded plays and cost their teams money.

What if they fined a team's cap space? As in, taking away a team's cap amount, possibly forcing them to drop a player. Pretty extreme but I'm just thinking out loud. Not a completely serious suggestion.