Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hoyle00cdn

  • Rank
    Hall of Famer
  1. Not everything is completely about money. Cole played on a line with Gionta and Gomez in the olympics. They had good chemistry; and Gionta was said to have been really sales pitching MTL hard to Cole. Gomez has been a 7M ghost in MTL, which more than likely is a major issue to rectify this offseason. In terms of contract duration, Cole, Gomez, and Gionta are all under contract for the next 4 years. By signing with MTL Cole has some security over his linemates through the peak years of his career. It's his last contract to be a major player, after that he'll slowly fall into a supporting role like Recchi. In regards to his comments about the city of Montreal. You can't take anything too heart. Players will always talk up the new city they're calling home. Cheers
  2. Game 3 is crucial. If I've learned anything from playoff series against the Hurricanes, a 2-0 series lead can crumble in a heartbeat. But yes Julien does appear to be losing the confidence on his bench and that's almost always a recipe for meltdown.
  3. What are you guys talking about, it looks like Cooke was just trying to rub him out of the play, if that hit had happened a second soon it would have been good old fashion hockey.....
  4. Give it another day and there will be a counter report claiming this one to be wrong. Markov went from 2 weeks to gone for the season.
  5. skating in 2 weeks, fit for physical contact in 3 to 5 weeks.
  6. "I did get him in the head. That wasn't my intention. I was just trying to make contact. That stuff happens in hockey. It's a rough sport. Sometimes that happens, and you have to live with it." - Brad Marchand "I did back into him with the forklift. That wasn't my intention. I was just trying to reverse. That stuff happens in construction. It's a dangerous job. Sometimes that happens, and you have to live with it." - Brad Marchand as a construction worker "I did give him the wrong blood type. That wasn't my intention. I was just trying to give a blood transfusion. That stuff happens in the medical field. It's a dangerous profession. Sometimes that happens, and you have to live with it." - Brad Marchand as a medical doctor
  7. Excellent article TSA, despite the reaction it got from (what I'm assuming are) bruins fans in the commentaries. I think the real question here is: When NHL players lace up their skates and step onto the ice they are consenting to a level of risk, but how high does that level go? Are they actually consenting to the possibility that they may never walk again? If so, the NHL's "laissez faire" approach to the Chara hit increases the chances that this possibility could become a reality. There's a lot of talk about "consent to risk of injury" following the Max/Chara incident, but perhaps there should be equal attention given to "consent to risk of causing injury" and therefore being accountable for it. It can just as easily (or at least should be) to argue that when a player steps onto the ice he is also consenting to a level of accountability if his actions cause serious harm, especially the play was not in line with the rules of the game. The NHL thinks too much in absolutes these days, and nothing typifies that more than Cherry's argument of 20games-or-0games. If our legal court systems followed a similar M.O. as the NHL disciplinary board it would be a disaster. When a motorized vehicle strikes a pedestrian, even if the pedestrian broke the law by J-walking or ignored a red light, the diver is still held to a degree of accountability, because when you step into a car you are consenting to a level of risk-accountability. In hockey the gray area between gritty and dirty can be rather daunting. As a result players always appear to be more willing to accept an increase of consent to risk over an increase in consent to accountability. This goes for every player around the league. Few players speak up on the subject outside the NHL's position because they're more worried about being the next Chara than the next Pacioretty. With the advent of the internet and Youtube, it has become pretty easy to type in almost any players name into a search engine along with the word "dirty" and have something relevant come up.
  8. So now Chara claims he didn't even know it was Pacioretty he was hitting. http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Zdeno-Chara-8216-had-no-idea-8217-he-was-tak?urn=nhl-wp48 A few days ago he claims he didn't know the stanchion was there, today he claims he didn't even know it was Pacioretty. At this rate tomorrow Chara's going to claim he didn't even know he was playing hockey.
  9. The more thought I put into the incident the more it disgusts me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one the extremists calling for Chara's head (although it is rumoured that when he comes to town small pets and children go missing ), but the NHL's decision could have a bad rippling affect. There's a reason why we don't see many of these hits along that danger zone, because players know it's a dangerous spot on the ice. Pinning the blame on the stanchion is only going to invite more aggressive behavior along that area of the ice. Players aren't going to go looking to end careers, but the NHL's message is pretty clear "Treat that danger zone like any other area on the ice". Why don't we see many pucks wired into team benches by mistake? Because every player has a good understanding of where the glass begins and where it ends. Few NHL players have had the nerve to speak strongly out against it but those who have were very clear about the stanchions being a easily recognizable danger zone on the ice. The simple fact is "stanchions don't hurt people, people hurt people". The realm of accountability should extend beyond arguments of intentions and into carelessness as well. A player does not have to carry bad intentions in order to be careless on the ice. Arguing that the severity of Pacioretty's injury was the result of a routine hit gone horrific due to arena construction is a dangerous claim to make. Perhaps Brooks Orpik shouldn't have been given any further disciplinary action after his hit on Erik Cole, because technically speaking it was the boards that injured Cole. If that play had occurred in open ice it would have been a routine 2min for checking from behind. Perhaps Ovechkin was wrongfully suspended when he hit Briere into an open door by the player's bench, because if the door had been closed it would have been a routine 2min interference call. The comparisons could go on forever. Furthermore Bettman's handling of himself at the US conference in Washington was utter deplorable. Here you have a conference dedicated to the safety of children in youth hockey, and Bettman goes on record stating Horrific acts are part of the game. Way to sell the sport Bettman
  10. Air Canada's headquarters is situated in Duval Quebec which is close the Montreal. The negative publicity you're pointing to would happen, but I think it would be minimal considering much of the hockey world is already siting Air Canada's letter as nothing more than Homerism. Although I do greatly appreciate the support given in this thread.
  11. It's really unknown how significant Air Canada's sponsorship to the NHL really is. Bettman seemed less concerned about sponsorship dollars than finding an alternative carrier service to fill that potential void. The air canada article also states that the air liner contacted all 6 canadian teams in relation to the letter. Perhaps I am making a presumption here, but my guess is that Air Canada really only does business with 6 of the 32 NHL franchises. Air Canada's sponsorship value will probably reflect that percentage.
  12. The problem is, there are many other Canadian airline companies that would lunge at the opportunity to share their brand name on CBC. WestJet for starters is probably salivating at the opportunity.
  13. most likely not http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=357385
  14. Perhaps next game someone should fire the puck directly into the Bruins bench and hit Chara in the face. Because technically if that play had happened anywhere else on the ice it would have hit glass. Sound stupid? Well that's my exact thoughts about the "blame it on the turnbuckle" excuse.
  15. Argh, my opinion will probably sound bias or skewed simply because it's my team, but I'm not a fan of the "turnbuckle" excuse. I understand that "if that happened anywhere else along the boards it would have been a routine hit", but that excuse could be used in so many other instances. When a player gets checked head first into the crossbar no body claims "well if that hit happened anywhere else on the ice it would have been a routine hit". Did Chara have a malicious intent to injure? No! NHL players aren't hardened criminals they're athletes and sometimes that heated emotions blur the line between competitiveness and carelessness. Chara should be suspended and it'll probably be for 2 games, because that seems to be the NHL standard for anything that doesn't involve blatant stupidity. I'd like to see 4 or 5 but maybe that's just the hab in me talking.
  • Create New...