Cooke suspension

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from gardenbees. Show gardenbees's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Cooke suspension : Bah... I tend to get irritated and I'm growing a little tired of ppl getting in the way of fundamentally good men, calling them hypocrites, as soon as they find the mere ounce of self-interest in their actions.  When's the last time you've seen someone do something devoid of any self-interests ? The topic was about Cooke's suspension, not about Lemieux's actions.  Didn't start it.
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]

    Lemieux is responsible for his livelihood and as an owner of any organization, should take responsiblity for their employees' actions.  Yet, he complains to the league about other team's hockey play.   It's called hypocracy.  So the mention of him is quite relevant.  Do you not understand hypocracy or is this an acceptable practice for you.  It can also be called irony.  I'm not going to waste time trying to spelling it out for you. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Cooke suspension : Lemieux is responsible for his livelihood and as an owner of any organization, should take responsiblity for their employees' actions.  Yet, he complains to the league about other team's hockey play.   It's called hypocracy.  So the mention of him is quite relevant.  Do you not understand hypocracy or is this an acceptable practice for you.  It can also be called irony.  I'm not going to waste time trying to spelling it out for you. 
    Posted by gardenbees[/QUOTE]


    Nah... I don't think Lemieux has to make up rules that would only apply to his team and cause them any kind of disadvantage.  If such players are allowed to play, as an owner, you protect your own players by giving him a contract on your team.  Hypocracy is calling Lemieux an hypocrite, as for most, if not all, of the other teams out there would offer Cooke a contract if he was made available, including your Bruins and my Habs. 

    I just think it's pretty useless, and dumb, to try and solve a league problem, by yourself, for your team only... Hypocracy is finding Lemieux ironic and to make him responsible of his players behaviours in a system which promotes such behaviours...
     
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrHulot. Show MrHulot's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    "Hypocracy is calling Lemieux an hypocrite, as for most, if not all, of the other teams out there would offer Cooke a contract if he was made available, including your Bruins and my Habs."

    Maybe your Habs, but definitely not the Bruins, not after the blind-side hit against Savard. And Lame-Ieux has always been a hypocrite, even before his recent tirade. He enjoyed having the likes of Samuelsson and Kasparaitis on his team while he publicly whined about the league not protecting its star players (read: cowards like him). Then he wasn't healthy enough to play for the old Penguins owner but miraculously came back after he had taken over the team. I have absolutely no respect for him and the rest of the Penguins, and that includes Shero whose "classy statement" should have come about a year ago to make it sound credible to me.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    Shero is genetically disadvantaged when it comes to taking the "classy" route to wiping out attempts to injure.  Sorry Ray, but "sins of the father" have come calling.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE]"Hypocracy is calling Lemieux an hypocrite, as for most, if not all, of the other teams out there would offer Cooke a contract if he was made available, including your Bruins and my Habs." Maybe your Habs, but definitely not the Bruins, not after the blind-side hit against Savard. And Lame-Ieux has always been a hypocrite, even before his recent tirade. He enjoyed having the likes of Samuelsson and Kasparaitis on his team while he publicly whined about the league not protecting its star players (read: cowards like him). Then he wasn't healthy enough to play for the old Penguins owner but miraculously came back after he had taken over the team. I have absolutely no respect for him and the rest of the Penguins, and that includes Shero whose "classy statement" should have come about a year ago to make it sound credible to me.
    Posted by MrHulot[/QUOTE]

    Ohh... I think the only reason why the Bruins wouldn't offer at least a 500K$ contract to Cooke has to be that he injured Savard...

    And the problem here might arise from your definition of credibility, more so than from Lemieux's actions/words... Second problem might also be how you consider Lemieux's ex teammates and actual players valuable reasons to dismiss what he says. 

    If I was Lemieux and I encountered such stupidity, I'd hire 15 more Matt Cookes and push the league to do something about the problem before my players get hurt more badly.  What's the use of arguing with deaf hard headed men who calls for unattainable credibility before giving any value to anything you have to say. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrHulot. Show MrHulot's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    Oh, right, calling people stupid, deaf and hard-headed just because they don't agree with your idolization of the so-called "Magnificent One"? That's simply swell, Mr "Genius"!
    If you'd read my post completely before you went ahead on your predictable condescending ways you might have discovered that it was Lame-Ieux's actions, first and foremost, that caused me to doubt his credibility. And if there was, according to your enormously insightful post, really no point in arguing with me and thus giving any value to my opinion, then why do you still do it? Is that a concept you don't understand? gardenbees is right - you're really not that clever.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE]Oh, right, calling people stupid, deaf and hard-headed just because they don't agree with your idolization of the so-called "Magnificent One"? That's simply swell, Mr "Genius"! If you'd read my post completely before you went ahead on your predictable condescending ways you might have discovered that it was Lame-Ieux's actions, first and foremost, that caused me to doubt his credibility. And if there was, according to your enormously insightful post, really no point in arguing with me and thus giving any value to my opinion, then why do you still do it? Is that a concept you don't understand? gardenbees is right - you're really not that clever.
    Posted by MrHulot[/QUOTE]

    I must appologize.  I didn't mean to be rude. 

    I must add that I didn't mean to call ppl stupid for not idolizing Lemieux... I don't either.  What I was pointing out as being stupidity, deafness and hard-headedness was the "idea" that what Mario had to say wasn't worthy of credibility or consideration because of the few points that you have so kindly brought up.  To me, and maybe just to me (that would make me an unclever lonely weirdo maybe), those were weak arguments to rid a guy of his credibility, that's all. I was calling out an "idea" as being stupid.  I don't know you.  I can't call you stupid.  I have more than my share of stupid ideas, but that doesn't necessarily make me stupid, right ?  Or maybe I am... lol, who gives a darn...

    I think arguing with you is worth it and I respect your opinion... but I was referring to what Lemieux had encountered when he said what he said, not what I encountered when I said what I said.  That's why I said, "If I was him, I'd do this and that...", but I'm not him right ? 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from deejm2112. Show deejm2112's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    At some point the NHL is going to have to define REAL suspensions, and this is a good start, otherwise Cooke will just be Cooke, but I say x suspensions = done for season, X+ suspensions = done for season + playoffs, x++suspensions = season, playoffs, and part of next season, and so on until you're just banned, at some point the NHL has to say "we don't want your type!", a guy like Cooke will be forced to clean it up or he'll work himself out of a job.

    At least Pitts response was classy, anything less would be hypocritical.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikzor. Show mikzor's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE]Wedgy, if we are all agreed that the NHL needs to do more to rid the game of dirty hits and protect player safety, we should all just take this as a sign of progress, and nothing more.  Bruins fans, by and large, resent of inconsistency of all of the posturing on this topic, and that includes Mario/Habs fans seemingly coming unglued only when their own players get hurt.  Sorry to generalize, but it just seems that way.  Cooke is the worst guy out there, agreed? Punishment for him should mean a lot more than punishment for Chara, for anyone sincerely interested in cleaning up the game.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    Cooke didnt hit a Canadian, so Wedgy doesnt care.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mikzor. Show mikzor's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE] but I was referring to what Lemieux had encountered when he said what he said, not what I encountered when I said what I said.  That's why I said, "If I was him, I'd do this and that...", but I'm not him right ? 
    Posted by Wedgy-Dunlop[/QUOTE]

    Are you high or drunk right now?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bigvig. Show bigvig's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    First:  Why does anyone read what the Habs fan writes?  Its all BS anyway.  Put him on ignore and skip his posts like I do, youre not missing anything.

    Second:  Lame-ieux is a complete and total hypocrite.  ALWAYS has been guys, its nothing new.  I bet he wont DARE to open his mouth about this, but is he does it will be entertaining to say the least.

    Lastly, Im on the fence about the suspension.  The league was looking for a reason to send a message to him, but I didnt think the elbow was that bad.  CERTAINLY not as bad as the one on Seguin, but Hornqvist only got a $2500 fine.  COME ON!  If the league wanted to crack down on this stuff it would be even across the board.  An elbow to the head from the front like Cookes, 2-4 games.  The side or behind, 6 games+.  Repeat offenders get double the suspension per offense.  Put it in writing and make it THE rule.  Yes, Cooke has a history but Im not sure this is the right call given the fact that theyve NEVER called him out for this before.  I think they should have sat him down for 10 games PLUS told him if he did ANYTHING that looked like an intention, dirty play, he would get a full year with NO contact to anyone in the NHL.  However, PERSONALLY I WISH they would have given him the rest of the year period.  I just hate the inconsistency in the league.  Does this mean if Marchand elbows someone ever again he is getting 20 games?  This is my only issue with them doing this to Cooke.  The league screwed up by not suspending him for the Savard hit, which they easily could have no matter what they say, and now theyre trying to make up for it.  Thats where Im on the fence.  You cant make up for a past non-call. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE]First:  Why does anyone read what the Habs fan writes?
    Posted by bigvig[/QUOTE]

    Because some of us are wicked smaht?

    I agree with your point about having a black and white policy so that the NHL can't have the mysterious wheel of justice that hands out suspensions seemingly at random. While they got the last 2 big calls right (no games for Chara and a long suspension for Cooke), too often they're missing the boat and allowing the inmates to run the asylum. That has to stop, and one of the ways to make it stop is to put in a more concrete policy. I doubt it happens because I think the league brass like having unfettered power.

    The second way to clean things up is to get rid of the instigator rule.  Cooke doesn't fear any retribution, and why should he? I know Tony Twist and guys like him were oftimes useless except to fight, but the instances of these kind of cheap shots is reduced if players feared having to run for their lives against an enforcer.

    I do disagree that the league has to make up for the Savard hit, since the hit on Savard wasn't illegal at the time. It should have been, but it wasn't; thankfully it is now. But since that's the case, I don't think they're looking to make up something that really wasn't wrong. I don't think the league cares about PR, either, at least when it comes to suspensions. If they did, I bet they would have given Chara a couple of games just to keep up appearances. That probably would have saved them any kind of outcry, and instead they (correctly) said they heck with outcry, we're giving him 0 because that's what we think he deserves.

    I think if anything they're just sick of Matt Cooke being Matt Cooke, and for that I can't blame them. The only reason we're all sick of Matt Cooke is because of the antics of the man himself. The guy gets what he deserves (almost; he shouldn't play again this year. Here's hoping the Pens lose in Round 1 so he doesn't).
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    Players for the teams Pittsburgh will play - in particular Florida, NJ, and Philadelphia which get them twice - should send Campbell thank-you cards.  He may have just saved them some LTIR time.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bigvig. Show bigvig's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Cooke suspension : Because some of us are wicked smaht? I agree with your point about having a black and white policy so that the NHL can't have the mysterious wheel of justice that hands out suspensions seemingly at random. While they got the last 2 big calls right (no games for Chara and a long suspension for Cooke), too often they're missing the boat and allowing the inmates to run the asylum. That has to stop, and one of the ways to make it stop is to put in a more concrete policy. I doubt it happens because I think the league brass like having unfettered power. The second way to clean things up is to get rid of the instigator rule.  Cooke doesn't fear any retribution, and why should he? I know Tony Twist and guys like him were oftimes useless except to fight, but the instances of these kind of cheap shots is reduced if players feared having to run for their lives against an enforcer. I do disagree that the league has to make up for the Savard hit, since the hit on Savard wasn't illegal at the time. It should have been, but it wasn't; thankfully it is now. But since that's the case, I don't think they're looking to make up something that really wasn't wrong. I don't think the league cares about PR, either, at least when it comes to suspensions. If they did, I bet they would have given Chara a couple of games just to keep up appearances. That probably would have saved them any kind of outcry, and instead they (correctly) said they heck with outcry, we're giving him 0 because that's what we think he deserves. I think if anything they're just sick of Matt Cooke being Matt Cooke, and for that I can't blame them. The only reason we're all sick of Matt Cooke is because of the antics of the man himself. The guy gets what he deserves (almost; he shouldn't play again this year. Here's hoping the Pens lose in Round 1 so he doesn't).
    Posted by Kennedy97[/QUOTE]

    I said "fan" not fans.  I ignore the ones who are here just to troll.  After his introductory post, I put him on ignore.  Im POSITIVE I havent missed anything productive since I am forced to read some of his drivel when others quote him.

    Second, Im 34, from Maine & have a college education which equals no accent.  I DO NOT speak like a Bostonian.  Its funny, when I travel people often ask where Im from because I speak like a generic American, and the reply I usually get is "Wow, I thought Mainers had a thick accent."
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wedgy-Dunlop. Show Wedgy-Dunlop's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Cooke suspension : Are you high or drunk right now?
    Posted by mikzor[/QUOTE]

    lol, busted.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Cooke suspension

    In Response to Re: Cooke suspension:
    [QUOTE]. Second, Im 34, from Maine & have a college education which equals no accent.  I DO NOT speak like a Bostonian.  Its funny, when I travel people often ask where Im from because I speak like a generic American, and the reply I usually get is "Wow, I thought Mainers had a thick accent."
    Posted by bigvig[/QUOTE]

    I'm from Maine also, and I love the expression "wicked smaht".  That's why I wrote it.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share