Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Manatee-X

Moderators/Modérateurs
  • Posts

    5,511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Manatee-X

  1. I don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, I just want to say that I will never not laugh at these lines
  2. Yeah, they're just dropping ball after ball on this one. They made a bad choice in terms of human decency when they drafted him. Now they're adding to it by making a bad hockey choice by supposedly keeping him from training camp. And the usefulness that we're getting out of our first round draft pick is... what exactly?
  3. Has there been any update that Weber will play at some point next year? Or is that just wishful thinking?
  4. Haha tell us what you really think (I agree, by the way. God forbid Petry ever gets hurt this season)
  5. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise though, are they? At least not here. (I can't speak for twitter, lol ). To be honest I don't think our positions are actually that different from one another when it comes down to it. What's done is done, as far as the draft pick goes. Mailloux is here now, and I honestly wish him all the best. If he needs it, I hope the Habs can provide all of the counselling/coaching/whatever to help him through what I'm sure is a tough time for him. Likewise, I obviously hope that his victim is able to move past this (and I'm sure that you and everyone else who doesn't mind the draft pick feels the same way). I don't know the kid, or what he was/is feeling in terms of remorse. Like you've said before, it's not really up to us armchair quarterbacks to judge him one way or another, from a personal standpoint. But it's indisputable that, whatever his feelings on it now, he did commit this, frankly, pretty gross act. Furthermore, he himself tried to take responsibility by saying "don't draft me - there need to be repercussions for my actions". For the Canadiens to draft him anyway sends the message, loud and clear, that "we don't take this sort of thing seriously". THAT is the problem for me. If Mailloux had gone undrafted, I can guarantee you that every Junior player with NHL aspirations is going to remember that for years to come. Let it be known that, if you want to realize your dream of playing in the NHL one day, maybe it's not such a good idea to take or share those photos, or to go too far with someone who's out of it after drinking, or whatever else. The NHL had a chance to set a real precedent, to show that womens' issues (and women) actually matter, and they blew it. And on a personal level, the fact that this was done by the Canadiens - the team that I want to be able to cheer for and enjoy without needing to worry about all of this sort of thing - makes it even more annoying to me. The fact that it was Mr. Morals himself, Marc Bergevin, pushes it over the top. He will trade a guy away for having a drug addiction or for being too outspoken, blaming each of those moves on "character", and yet he goes and does this? Hold that torch high there, bud.
  6. I'm going back to RCAF's post again (because it really did help shape my thoughts on this quite a bit) but I think this is representative of a bigger issue in hockey culture generally. I mean it's perfectly likely that this is his first offense, if by offense we mean sharing photos like this. But, like you said, this kind of "lock room talk" is absolutely pervasive, and has been for a long time. With or without the photos, it's that sort of underlying disrespect that needs changing - the photos in this case are just taking it to the extreme. Is it fair to pin all of that on one 17-year-old kid who did something stupid? Probably not. But the world isn't exactly fair (and, as an aside, it's even less fair to the girl who he took the photos of), and if he's a good enough player I'm sure he'd have been drafted next year anyway. The issue I have isn't even necessarily with the kid - he may very well be able to learn from this and come out the other side a better person - it's with the message that the Canadiens as a hockey team are sending by picking him this year in the first round. That message is that "we, as a team, are ok with this". And IMO they shouldn't be.
  7. It's tough, because there's a lot of fingers that can be pointed in a lot of different directions here. If Montreal hadn't picked him then some other team probably would have. So from that perspective, why not draft him if you're Bergevin? It's not like he was going to learn his lesson anyway, so we might as well be the team to benefit from it. I think you're right that the NHL had probably the best chance keep him from being drafted, but if you ask them they'd just say that they're beholden to the member teams and if those teams want to make the draft choice, it's their decision. I mean I can't even get too high and mighty here. I can talk all I want about how this is a horrible choice and how we need to consider the victim, etc, but am I going to stop watching the team because of this draft pick? Nope. Am I going to cheer if he makes it to the NHL and scores a goal? You bet. So even as a fan, I have no problem saying all the right things and yet I'm doing absolutely nothing about it. It's so easy to pass the buck on to someone else at each level, which is why nothing is actually really changing. With all that said, though, I'm still going to criticize this selection. Even if someone was eventually going to pick him up, it didn't have to be us and it didn't have to be in the first round. Show some class, Canadiens.
  8. If we still had the "post of the day" thread from years back, I'd be nominating this one. Your point about hockey culture is a really good one, and it's helped to put this whole thing into better perspective for me. I mean it was a crime, it was involving sex... I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to call it a sexual crime, no? It's not sexual assault, granted, and yes there are varying degrees of crimes, but it still fits in very much with the general hockey culture of "boys will be boys" that RCAF was talking about above. I get the idea of giving second chances, and I agree with it, but there's a difference between "second chances" and "no consequences". I think that that's the issue here, for me. Give the kid a year to figure himself out. See if he shows any sort of remorse, but more importantly, see if he can actually change his behaviour. If he does, and if he's still looking like a worthwhile prospect, then by all means draft him then. That's giving him a second chance, but it's giving someone a second chance after he's had to own up to what happened. More importantly, it also demonstrates to other young players looking to break into the league that just because you're a hockey player on the path to success doesn't mean that you've got carte blanche to act however you want.
  9. Yeah, to be honest I really don't see a world where Gallagher is made captain. Don't me wrong, I still like the guy and I'm glad he's on the team, but he doesn't strike me as a dressing room leader and (more importantly IMO) he's definitely not the guy we want talking to the refs. I can see them going a year without a captain long before I see them giving it to Gally (especially since it's not a sure thing that Weber is out for good after this year). My guess is that they will run with three "A"s for now, and then give it to someone (Suzuki?) next year if Weber is indeed not coming back.
  10. Interesting news about Drouin - makes you wonder why Seattle didn't pick him up if that's the case.
  11. Even with the cap room they have, though, they're taking a pretty big gamble if their only plan is the UFA market. I mean if you're a free agent and you look at what they've got now... well, I can't imagine it's going to be most players' first choice. That means they're going to need to really overpay anybody who they get, which doesn't sound like a great winning recipe. And even then there's no guarantee that they'll land the players that they want.
  12. Honestly? I have no idea, and there are too many unknowns for me to even make an educated guess. The biggest two questions being: what's up with Drouin (and how much are the Kraken aware of) and has there been any communication with Seattle regarding Price. All the same I voted for Price, mostly because I had to vote for someone and it seemed as good a choice as any. I get the arguments against his selection, and I'm not ruling out the Canadiens' story of exposing him based on the fact that he won't be taken being the honest truth. But things sorts of bold moves can have a way of coming back to bite you, and I can see Seattle taking a chance. It's the Fleury storyline in Vegas that's pushed me over the edge though - people (both fans and management) tend to read patterns in these sorts of things, and I can certainly see Seattle selecting Price based on both his star power and on the potential additional interest he would bring to the team if he's successful.
  13. Haha honestly those eyes were kind of a highlight of the playoffs for me (sorry, Jeff). Talk about intimidating!
  14. You always wonder after reading something like this whether it would have been better to have just taken him out. No disrespect to Toffoli, who I'm sure 100% wanted to play, but was injured Toffoli playing at that level actually a better choice than Tatar or Evans or Kotkaniemi? I'm not sure that he was.
  15. I didn't choose Armia since I can't quite nominate him as "most valuable" on the team, but him and Edmunston were by far and away the winners of my "exceeded my expectations" award. I wouldn't have given a thought to replacing either with spare parts before the playoffs started, but they sure made names for themselves throughout all four series.
  16. I read this in one of the other threads this morning (sorry for not quoting whoever came up with it) but although some of the lineup choices were not great they weren't realistically the difference in the Tampa series. Would putting Romanov in earlier or subbing in Tatar have been a better idea? I think so. Would it have won us the series? Probably not. Montreal was always going to live and die in this series by their effort and by the whims of the hockey gods... and we didn't quite get the divine help that we needed. C'est la vie. It was fun. Good: Suzuki - Caulfield - Anderson. I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do in a full season next year. Bad: Not quite making it, especially knowing that with our UFAs and with the entry draft our group of vets is likely not going to get another chance to make a run together. Ugly: No choice here but the reffing. I don't say this lightly, since I know it's someone's career at stake, but I hope Chris Lee is done in this league.
  17. I can't think of another sport that openly just ignores their own rulebook in the playoffs. My wife is tired of hearing me talk about it - it just seems so silly to me. Paradoxically, though, I don't actually hate playoff-style hockey where things go uncalled. If they had a consistent standard and everyone knew what to expect I could probably get behind it. The problem, though, is that things do get called, but only sometimes, and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. If you let 10 hooks go but then call the 11th, the optics of the situation is that the refs basically just call a penalty whenever they feel like it. It's no wonder we get so many complaints about biased officiating - whether the conspiracies are true or not, when the refs' calls are more or less unrelated to the severity of what's going on on the ice it's going to look suspicious and feel frustrating every single time. Edit: ^^I should mention that all of that is talking about standard playoff reffing, like we saw in the SCF. If we start talking about Chris Lee-level incompetence... well that's a whole other thing.
  18. Probably for me it would be Suzuki, then Edmunston and Danault. But a case could be made for any of the other three defensemen, and yeah even for Perry.
  19. The only way I realistically see any of them leaving is through the entry draft. That's going to be the most interesting part of the offseason IMO - who does he protect, and what happens as a result.
  20. Yep, +1 to what everyone else is saying. Ducharme could be the worst coach in the world and they'd still bring him back after getting us to the SCF.
  21. Honestly that just doesn't seem like a Bergevin thing to do. And for once I don't even really mean that in a bad way (although, if it were me, I'd be looking into trades). IMO Bergevin is enough about "loyalty" that I can't see him looking to move any of the "big 4" unless he absolutely has to, and who knows, maybe there's even something to be said for that sort of attitude. Or maybe I'm still just feeling warm and fuzzy after that cup run
  22. It's not just Tampa's star players that their cap situation impacts, either. These last few games Montreal did a pretty good job stopping their top lines, but it was their depth that scored. But how did they pay for that depth? Using the cap space that they had available by not having to pay their stars. Don't get me wrong - Tampa is the better team on paper, and Montreal's coaches made some decisions that I wouldn't have made. But credit where credit is due: when you get within 3 wins of the cup you've done something right. Montreal played three fantastic series, and with the exception of game 1 they weren't terribly overmatched by the Lightning, either. There's always luck involved, but this wasn't a complete fluke or anything - Montreal played well, and should be proud of what they've accomplished.
  23. Yep, it was definitely a fun run. Well done, guys.
  24. I mean, we've already come back from 3-1 this year . I think that has more relevance to our current team's chances than whatever was happening back in the 1930s or whatever.
  25. Tie - Habs can still count, can't it? Or is that too much of a stretch for HTL?
×
×
  • Create New...