the lowest of lows

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    I'd love to see him booted out the league, but the NHLPA would never allow it and actually stick up for a player that keeps hurting members of it's union.





     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    In response to kelvana33's comment:


    I'd love to see him booted out the league, but the NHLPA would never allow it and actually stick up for a player that keeps hurting members of it's union.


     








    That's the thing kel, I think it would put the union in a very awkward spot.  They would fight it on principle, but I bet their card carrying members would not object to a strong move against a player like Cooke who has no respect for his fellow union members.  


    It might be interesting to have the league go ahead and let the union squirm with that paradox.  Time for the union to make some tough decisions...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bruinfaninnewjersey. Show Bruinfaninnewjersey's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    Feed him to Chara and Lucic.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    In response to kelvana33's comment:


    I'd love to see him booted out the league, but the NHLPA would never allow it and actually stick up for a player that keeps hurting members of it's union.


     




    This is why I hate unions & left them all. But, they're obligated by the law to "stick up" for everyone. Just like unions need to protect dog fawkers!And in case this isn't a well known US term. That's the meaning of someone who's lazy. But, I agree kel it really suks that a union or an association has to do all they can to protect the individual & help him keep his job.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from OrrandPapiRGods. Show OrrandPapiRGods's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:


    The maddening part about it is that Cooke's actions unquestionably help his team in the series (and put the Avs at a disadvantage for the rest of the playoffs).  Barrie has become a very important player for the Avs, amid a pretty thin blueline.  This hurts them a lot.  Much more than losing Cooke hurts the Wild.


    The NHL should be embarrassed that Matt Cooke is still able to injure players in their league.


    Why shouldn't Bordeleau/McLeod go take out Ryan Suter or Parise with a cheap shot? I mean, besides the basic human decency thing.


    I think the league has two choices to deter dirty hits in the playoffs. Take control of the situation with heavy penalties to the player and the team doing it, or allow the players to handle it and seek retribution as a deterrent. 30 years ago Cooke would have to give up a pound of flesh for this hit and Ryan Suter would be biting his nails furiously on the bench before every shift.  I don't think anyone wants to go back to the retribution scenario, so the league needs to step it up. 


    The NHL essentially protects Cooke now, so he can have a long career, doing what he does.



    If you are talking about the instigator penalty I totally disagree. Get rid of that stupid rule and the players would have taken care of Cooke long ago. Reference point, Gretzky's sidekicks ... Cement Head, Lumberjack McSorley, etc.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    In response to kelvana33's comment:


    I'd love to see him booted out the league, but the NHLPA would never allow it and actually stick up for a player that keeps hurting members of it's union.



    It's a problem with all unions and I don't understand it.  I know of a postal employee that assaulted another postal employee.  The assaulter got arrested for felony assault.  The union went to bat to try to keep the job of the assaulter.  So why do the rights of the perp take precedence over the victim's right to a safe workplace? 


     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:


    In response to kelvana33's comment:


     


    I'd love to see him booted out the league, but the NHLPA would never allow it and actually stick up for a player that keeps hurting members of it's union.


     



     


    It's a problem with all unions and I don't understand it.  I know of a postal employee that assaulted another postal employee.  The assaulter got arrested for felony assault.  The union went to bat to try to keep the job of the assaulter.  So why do the rights of the perp take precedence over the victim's right to a safe workplace? 


     


     




    I think it is just the union protecting the rights of a dues paying member even though the evidence supports some type of discipline.The employee in question will get the anger management help he needs and hopefully be a productive employee down the road,if not he will be sacked,a union can only do so much.I know some unions have their warts but i worked for a company that if there wasn't a union they would have had us working 7 days a week and our allotted days off would be spent at a company facility waiting to get called for work again.I can't speak for all unions but my union did and does a great job of keeping the company i worked for in check and held them accountable.As far as Cooke goes,he's had more than enough chances,a year or 2 off would be appropriate.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from socca10. Show socca10's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    His hearing is this afternoon. I hope SQ plays this video along with video of all the horrible hits since the Savard mugging. I'm not sure even the NHLPA can defend this guy any more.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nig2naN8NTs" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nig2naN8NTs


     


    Still no pics, eh BDC?


     


    http://i57.tinypic.com/biqa92.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i57.tinypic.com/biqa92.jpg


     


     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011. Show StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    Matt Cooke's goal in life is to injure as many players as possible, he doesnt care about 5 or 10 games suspensions, .he gets his pleasure in seing an opponent lying on the ice after a dirty hit ....thats how he is you wont change him , only the NHL could stop this comedy by suspending him for 1 year ...but they wont do it


     Stanley Cup to the BRUINS in 2011 & 4 more Cups by 2020

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    on this we agree

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from croc. Show croc's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    Awe he's got one guy on his side.  Raffi feels Cooke's pain. 


     


    http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_25615531/sharks-forward-raffi-torres-understands-what-minnesota-wilds" rel="nofollow">http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_25615531/sharks-forward-raffi-torres-understands-what-minnesota-wilds" rel="nofollow">http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_25615531/sharks-forward-raffi-torres-understands-what-minnesota-wilds


     


     I'd allow him back in when Barrie is ready to return. Not that Cooke's loss would hurt MN much. 


     


     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    7 games for the s come bag

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from perrysound. Show perrysound's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    The NHL failed it's players, once again. 


    There is a distinct difference between a hockey play gone bad, and some P O S going out of his way to hurt or maim another player. Is it that difficult to see?


     


     


     


     


     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    NHLPA stepped in and gave that skeza another break.







     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bruinfaninnewjersey. Show Bruinfaninnewjersey's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    Where's Evander Kane to punch him in the face?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    I have no problem with the NHLPA defending Cooke - it's their job and even the lowest of the low in society deserve representation. But I never understand why they wouldn't stand up and make a very public statement in defense of the victims, too. The league should be jury on these hearings, but not prosecution. Let two union reps argue in defense of both players, and the league issues the judgement. It's messed up.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    Cooke gets 7 games for his umpteenth serial predatory assault and Thornton gets 15 games because Orprick can't take a punch.I don't condone what ST did,but for a first time offender to get 15 games worth of salary docked and Cooke gets no salary docked if the Wild move on,incredible.Raffi Torres feels sorry for Cooke though,so Matt should sleep better anyway.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:


     



     
     
     [/QUOTE]

    When will Bettman finally ban this piece of trash? Thornton for 15 games and Cooke only gets 7 after a decade's worth of despicable and intentional cheap shot work as a career?


     


     


     


     


     


     


    [/QUOTE]




    When will BDC get it? You've been banned over 20 times only to keep coming here with your lies and false information.


    Your not allowed to talk hockey until you answer for your Kevin Stevens comments.


     


     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    In response to asmaha's comment:


    I have no problem with the NHLPA defending Cooke - it's their job and even the lowest of the low in society deserve representation. But I never understand why they wouldn't stand up and make a very public statement in defense of the victims, too. The league should be jury on these hearings, but not prosecution. Let two union reps argue in defense of both players, and the league issues the judgement. It's messed up.





    I think you see this or something like it happen at some point in the very near future, because it just makes so much more sense.  Right now, whether it's reality or not, the optics are that the NHL attempts to discipline offenders and the PA fights that discipline tooth and nail.  That makes this look like it's solely about money - the injured player still gets paid, while discipline hits a player in the wallet.  Protecting that guy's salary is the PA's job, here.  This doesn't acknowledge the fact that a guy might not return, or might not be the same player when he returns, and may not earn as much on his next contract or contracts if he's not.  But mostly, I think the problem is that discipline pits the employer against the employee as though what was at stake here was a violation of the employer's standard of conduct or some contract provision rather than negotiated standards of conduct to ensure the safety of the players.


    I agree that players need someone who knows the rules and their rights to help them in disciplinary matters, but maybe this should be handled by independent counsel?  The PA could provide a list of reps with their stamp of approval to both parties - the injured player and the offending player - and the injured player (or the guy who got hit if there was no injury) would have the option to have his rep participate.  I don't think you could ever go to a court proceeding with a plaintiff and defendant and Judge Wapner.  Too easy for the plaintiff to push for bigger punishments for competitive rather than disciplinary reasons (Hi, I'm Max Pacioretty...).


    So you'd need three "sides" in total.  The first would be an NHL "D.A" (head of discipline) who would say why the player was brought in, how he was perceived to have violated rules in a manner that called for supplementary discipline, and other factors based on collective bargaining that should be taken into account when determining the appropriate punishment (repeat offenses, continuation of a play that suggest malice aforethought...).  The player's rep and the player would provide their interpretation (clean hit w/ bad result, extenuating circumstance - player moved/ducked/tripped just before impact, etc.), then the impacted player's rep would allowed to speak to the impact of the act (severity of injury, time off the ice, loss of future earnings...). 


    All of this would have to be heard by someone with the legal chops to make a binding decision, and that person would have to be approved by both the NHL and the PA and paid from a set-aside fund for the purpose.


    In a case like this, an independent ruling could say "we're in uncharted territory - we've never had a player responsible for this many incidents, both suspended and those that would have been suspended if the current rules had applied at the time.  Therefore, our conclusion is that the NHL should suspend Matt Cooke indefinitely...."


     



    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:


     


    In a case like this, an independent ruling could say "we're in uncharted territory - we've never had a player responsible for this many incidents, both suspended and those that would have been suspended if the current rules had applied at the time.  Therefore, our conclusion is that the NHL should suspend Matt Cooke indefinitely...."


     


     


     


     


     


     


     



    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


    [/QUOTE]

    And that, unfortunately, is where the dream ends.  I wish to god that he would get banished from the league for good. But i dont see it ever happening. And its unfortunate.  Everyone knows how this will go: After this suspension, Cooke will probably play mostly clean hockey for a season or two(probably one or two borderline hits will happen with no discipline), and then bam, another blatantly dirty hit and here we are again.


     


    Its getting old really. I seriously hate that guy.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    I'm at the point now where I honestly think that it's going to take another Bill Masterton or Howie Morenz before the league finally starts to take this as seriously as it needs to be taken.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    I say that they introduce some type of penalty that can be quantified. I say for this type of incident where the intent was clear that the offender, in addition to being banned for a number of games, also be fined the amount of the medical bills incurred by the victim. If you know you're going to eat a $150,000 doctor's bill you might think twice about taking a cheap shot.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    Wouldn't work lambda, because you couldn't distribute the costs evenly. If you injured a player on an American team you'd be on the hook for medical bills, if you injured a player on a Canadian team, there'd be no bill to pay.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: the lowest of lows

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:


    When will Bettman finally ban this piece of trash? Thornton for 15 games and Cooke only gets 7 after a decade's worth of despicable and intentional cheap shot work as a career? 





    I agree, however the rational was that they "weighted" playoff games v. regular season games.  The problem with that is if the wild get eliminated sooner than 7 games (likely), he gets out "cheap" with the balance of the games being early regular season.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share