• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Manatee-X

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/16/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

11,832 profile views
  1. I dunno... I've always loved sea cows. That's about all there is to it
  2. Hey, nice to see some early movement
  3. Honestly I hate the childish nonsense that goes on in a hockey game. I hate the fighting, I hate the facewashing, I really, really, really hate the stupid scrums that break out after every second whistle. I know there are people here who will probably disagree with me, and that's fine, but in my opinion it takes away from everything I love about the sport. Is hockey an exciting, fast-paced game? You bet! ....unless of course someone taps a goalie's pads fishing for a loose puck after the whistle goes, in which case we're treated to two minutes of watching ten grown men take turns giving each other headlocks. Wow, look at that guy's puck-handling skills! Wait, never mind - he can't get to the puck because some giant defenseman is giving him a bear hug and it's not going to be called because there are no rules in the playoffs . And has anybody watched a Junior game recently? Actually, "recently" might be a bit of an overstatement for me. Despite them having some exciting players in that span, I haven't gone to watch my local Halifax Mooseheads team in probably six or seven years because in that league you literally (and I'm using "literally" literally) can't go two minutes without some sort of pileup or incident. Play some hockey, boys, that's what we came to see. One final thing, I'm not saying that hockey needs less hitting or that the players need to be less tough or whatever. Rugby has plenty of contact AND toughness, and yet they manage to do it all without gouging at each others' eyes whenever someone insults someone else's mother. I want to see a big winger muscle his way to the front of the net for a goal - I don't want to see a fourth liner punch that winger in the side of the head for scoring it.
  4. But other sports don't have this problem, right? I mean it's not like you see bench players running up and clocking LeBron James in the side of the head. And star player or no, if Mike Trout took a bat to someone's junk (like Marchant did with his stick a few years back) I can absolutely guarantee you that he'd receive more than a two-game suspension.
  5. Well in fairness, their team has lost for over 50 years. At some point that's going to stick with you
  6. Interesting that Plekanec wasn't given one of the A's, given his tenure and the fact that he was an assistant before. Not sure if we can read anything into it, but maybe it's not a given that he's got cemented his spot in the lineup?
  7. To my mind, the Shea Webers and Saku Koivus of the world are able to do (almost*) all of the things you mentioned with or without a 'C'. If someone of Weber's age/experience/reputation calls them out on something, I think that there are very few players who would come back with a "who do you think you are?" response. The same may not be true of someone younger and less well-known like Danault, so I can see how maybe getting the official captaincy could maybe be helpful then, but even so... particularly if he were to be appointed (as opposed to being voted in) I'm still not sure if I see the captaincy as something that would change the respect level towards a person much one way or another. But maybe. The asterisk in my above paragraph is because I think we'd both agree that Weber does not seem to be a very emotional player on the ice (your point 5). And while being calm has its advantages as well, generally I agree with you that I would rather the captain show a bit more heart. That's actually the main reason why I don't even want a captain this year (in addition to the fact that I'd like to see Weber traded). If we had a Koivu or a Gainey on this team I don't even think there would be much of a conversation here, and certainly there would be fewer 'no captain' votes. But we don't really have a guy that fits all of the criteria. So as it stands, if I HAD to pick, I'd probably go with Weber as a calming presence in what's sure to be a difficult season. I could easily be convinced of a Danault or a Petry as well, but I honestly don't know enough about them to know whether they'd be up for the media side or the social/leadership/dressing-room aspects. Presumably the coaches/players/management do know them better, though, so if one of them was picked I'd be on board.
  8. I voted for no captain, but if I had to pick I'd go with Weber (but would also be okay with the Danault or Petry suggestions, probably). Personally, I feel that as far as leadership in the room goes, the people who are going to lead are going to do it with or without a letter. If a young player is getting out of line or whatever, do you think someone like Weber or Plekanec would be more likely to stay quiet just because they don't have the C? Does missing a letter somehow negate your ability to play hard or to say something inspiring? I really don't think it matters. So in practical terms, that leaves the captain with two jobs: talk to the refs, and face the media (without becoming overwhelmed). Gallagher is the absolute worst choice on the team when it comes to the first one. As much as I like the guy, there's no way his childish smarminess is going to do anything but further agitate a bad situation. He's already on every referee's black-list when it comes to making calls against him - frankly, the less the refs even think about this guy the better it is for him and the team. As for the second qualification, neither Petry nor Danault has ever had to take many burning media questions (at least to my knowledge). Would they be cut out for it? I honestly have no way of knowing. Weber seems like he could handle it just fine, though, so although he might be the 'safe' choice he's still the one I'd go with if pressed for a decision.
  9. I hate the other two options so much, I don't think we've got much choice in that situation but to re-sign him. Even if your plan is to continue to shop him (and I do think there will come a day when a Pacioretty-like player signed to that contract will be in more demand) I don't want to give him away for 2nd rounders or (potentially, if nobody bites at the deadline) for nothing. And who knows, in theory we could still ice a competitive team before he's in his twilight years.
  10. I just don't get why he would ever come out and say that, even if he was thinking it. It's not like Bergevin has an aversion to lying or secrecy, so why pick this moment for complete transparency? Unless maybe he is trying to resign Patches and just wanted some perceived leverage or something? Because seriously, I really can't see any positive to making it known publicly that you're planning on moving on.
  11. I think I'm mostly in agreement with you on the whole language thing, but unfortunately I'm not sure that the "old boys club" is much different whether that club speaks English or French. It's as bad if not worse in Montreal, where former players are the norm and it feels like there's a risk of hiring someone off l'Antichambre with every change in personnel. Some of Bergevin's worst mistakes outside of Subban revolved around hiring, and then refusing to fire, his friends, long after they'd proved that they couldn't do the job. And yes that was probably more cronyism than anything francophone-specific, but I'm sure that having the French media stick up for all of those guys long after it made any sense to do so didn't hurt Bergevin's resolve to keep them around. Regarding the language requirement more generally, I can see both sides. On the one hand, it's a mathematical fact that if you limit your candidate pool based on language (or anything else) then strictly speaking you're making a poor logical choice. In the best case scenario (if the best available coach also happens to be French) the restriction has no effect, but more often than not you're going to come out behind. Strictly speaking, there's not really any way to argue otherwise. But I'm going to do it anyway . Because I'm not convinced that speaking French is not a positive attribute to have as the coach of North America's only francophone-centric sports team. Professional sports is all about entertainment, and while winning games is certainly entertaining (and should absolutely be the #1 priority) it's not the only thing that matters. There's something to be said for the feelings of pride/belonging/identity/etc. that come with having a Québecois team that feels like a Québecois team. If I were a francophone who was big into the Canadiens I would absolutely get more out of hearing the coach speak French in his post-game comments. I kind of draw a parallel to how I feel about this year's roster after most of my favourite players have been traded away or let go. If (by some miracle) this team were to play well and go far into the playoffs it would be fun to watch, but for me personally it wouldn't be as fun to watch as if the team did the same thing but still had Eller, Subban, Galchenyuk and Markov on it. For whatever reason, those are the guys that I felt a connection to as a fan. They were MY players, MY team. It's not a stretch for me to see how a francophone supporter of the Canadiens might feel the same way about winning with francophone players, coaches, etc. With all of that said, though, it still comes down to icing a good team as the first priority and I'd look at every hire on a case-by-case basis. I'd rather watch this current team win the cup than watch the team from a few years ago miss the playoffs. As Noob said the question shouldn't be whether or not we need to have a francophone coach, but rather whether we can find a great francophone coach when it comes time to make a hire. Once you're at that top level there's realistically very little that's going to differentiate one coach from another anyway, so why not go with the one who's French? To put it another way, is the difference in ability between the best English and the best French choice greater than the benefits of hiring the French one? If the choice was someone like Therrien or a legitimately good anglophone candidate then the decision should be easy to go with the anglo. But if you've got great coaching options both ways than why not go with the hometown guy?
  12. Welp. There's that. I mean realistically it's not like Bergevin was going to trade him anyway, but that sure takes the fun out of trying to come up with interesting theoretical trade proposals.
  13. As others have said, the trade with Winnipeg was a good one in that we used our salary cap advantage as an actual advantage. Props for that. I don't know anything about prospects in general, but the people who do seem to be ok with most of our picks. So that's a positive sign, but I didn't put a lot of weight on this since it's all Greek to me. HATED the Galchenyuk trade, no matter how Domi plays here. I hate that we brought Galchenyuk's value so low based on how we used him (and then traded him at that low point). I hate that we're getting, on paper, the weaker goal-scorer on a team that can't score goals (and in a trade that we were not in any way forced to make). Most of all, though, I hate the fact that we used yet another of our few real bargaining chips and still don't have a centre or a defenseman. Boooooooo to all of it. Everything else? Tinkering. Maybe some of it will work, maybe some of it won't, but none of it is going to make a substantial difference to our chances this year or to our future. As bad as Bergevin has been in other years it's tempting to give him points just for not screwing things up too bad, but that's not really the bar that I want to set for the GM of a team who can afford the best of the best. We blew our chance at contending with stupid decisions in prior years, so now we need to cut our losses and rebuild. We've been taking some steps that indicate that we're moving in that direction, which is good, but we still have nothing to show for it. If we actually trade some of the likes of Patches, Price, Webber, Petry, Gallagher, Byron, etc. for a decent return then I would reevaluate, but for now it's all just what-ifs. Yes I'm glad that he hasn't traded them for peanuts if those are the only offers we've been getting, but considering that it was Bergevin's moves that got us into this mess (not to mention lowered the value of some of those players) I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for standing pat now. Ranking: a solid D
  14. Lol, agreed. You could not have written something better than that.
  15. It's funny, but you're right on. Even if a team like this would probably have a worse record than one in which we bring all those veterans back, it's also a team that I would actually tune in to watch.