WestcoastCanuck 0 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I really don't like Scott Burnside: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...&id=6120121 Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I really don't like Scott Burnside: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...&id=6120121 I think thats a great article. I respect the fact that you dont agree with him but he makes some good points.Interesting that he brings up Lombardi and the $50000 fine, and questions the fact if Lemieux will be fined.I am also interested if Mario will have another statement , based on all the negative press he is getting..He can make it right, if he chooses. Link to post Share on other sites
Dubey 1,035 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Mario isn't the GM of the team. Is there even a precedent for an owner stepping in and suspending/cutting a player?Anyway, I thought the suspensions were a joke, as expected, and I agree with everything that Mario said, whether it makes him a hypocrite or not. Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I really don't like Scott Burnside: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...&id=6120121 Why is there so much venom for Mario? A little respect would be nice. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Why is there so much venom for Mario? A little respect would be nice.I maybe wrong but there is a general anti Mario slant by the media. He isnt very talkative, he rarely gives interviews and overall a quite person.Also Scott Burnside isnt a stupid blogger in his moms basement, he is a respected journalist.Putting that aside Mario comes off as a whiner here, like he did the last time he attacked the NHL, by calling the league a "garbage league" Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I maybe wrong but there is a general anti Mario slant by the media. He isnt very talkative, he rarely gives interviews and overall a quite person.Also Scott Burnside isnt a stupid blogger in his moms basement, he is a respected journalist.sometimes to earn respect, you have to give respect.whatever, its another sign of the times, where hate sells. First Gretzky, now Lemieux. Well done NHL. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Also Scott Burnside isnt a stupid blogger in his moms basement, he is a respected journalist.Actually he's pretty famous for getting facts wrong and having a very partial viewpoint to his articles. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 sometimes to earn respect, you have to give respect.whatever, its another sign of the times, where hate sells. First Gretzky, now Lemieux. Well done NHL.The argument is the NHL has done a LOT for Lemieux.This isnt an issue with people "hating" on Mario. From what I can see people are divided on this issue pretty evenly.I for one dont hate Lemieux, i think he went about things the wrong way.I actually commend him for speaking out, however like others dont agree with the message. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Another view by a respected guy(I think we all agree Dreger is respected)http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/dregerreport/ Link to post Share on other sites
dEv~ 19 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Yea, the pens lead the league in fighting majors and penalty minutes but with the exception of a few dumb plays by Cooke it for the most part has been done the "right way". IMO Lemieux's intention was an attempt to speak toward ridding the entire league of this nonsense whether the Pens are the aggressors or the victims. Unfortunately he left it too vague and now everyone is jumping on this "hypocrite" bandwagon. Also the "I'm going to take my ball and go home part" might have been a bit over the top. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Brian Burke supports the league decision, while not naming Lemieux in his comment its obvious he doesnt agree with him.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hock...article1906163/ Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Article Link to post Share on other sites
dEv~ 19 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 F Brian Burke. I hope Lemieux releases another statement that clarifies what was left vague. I said it before a few times and I'll say it again...I don't for one second believe Lemieux approves of Matt Cooke but because he didn't specifically throw him under the bus he's gonna get this type of feedback. Even with Cooke's history I think you'd have a hard time finding something as brutal as what Martin and Gillies did on Friday night. Link to post Share on other sites
dEv~ 19 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Article Wow...speaking of hypocrites I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 F Brian Burke. I hope Lemieux releases another statement that clarifies what was left vague. I said it before a few times and I'll say it again...I don't for one second believe Lemieux approves of Matt Cooke but because he didn't specifically throw him under the bus he's gonna get this type of feedback. Even with Cooke's history I think you'd have a hard time finding something as brutal as what Martin and Gillies did on Friday night.At the risk of upsetting the masses, Mario is whining..The League governors all agree...Ironic that he also employs the biggest whiner in the NHL.. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Wow...speaking of hypocrites I guess.Totally irrelevant and whatever. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Totally irrelevant and whatever.That's my feeling about this entire conversation at this point. <grin> Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 At the risk of upsetting the masses, Mario is whining..The League governors all agree...lol. dont let the facts get in the way of your argument.Im trying to move to Adams side of this argument. I cant wait for the playoffs when the real hockey starts. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 lol. dont let the facts get in the way of your argument.Im trying to move to Adams side of this argument. I cant wait for the playoffs when the real hockey starts.Thats something we can agree on..Never mind the playoffs, lets just fast forward to Feb 28..Fun times. Link to post Share on other sites
gruven 530 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Wow, I'm astounded at the way this seems to be going: because some people might interpret that Lemieux is a hypocrite, his entire message is getting lost. That's seriously F'ed up. How can anyone think this thuggish behaviour is okay because Mario didn't name Cooke directly?????? Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Wow, I'm astounded at the way this seems to be going: because some people might interpret that Lemieux is a hypocrite, his entire message is getting lost. That's seriously F'ed up. How can anyone think this thuggish behaviour is okay because Mario didn't name Cooke directly??????I dont think there is anyone that says the thuggish behaviour is ok..Well maybe other than the NHL, and their stupid suspensions. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 So how come you, or anyone else, didnt bring up Mario's name around here? He was signing the same cheques then, right?And didnt we all watch 24/7, and follow Cooke's team with vigour, lining the same pocket?The word hypocrite has become synonmous with murdered all of a sudden. Its like there isnt hypocrisy EVERYWHERE! (caps just for you DG!)So does anyone who ever payed Cooke, followed Cooke, coached Cooke not get to make any points at all about hockey justice?Does anyone even remember he was a Canuck for like 10yrs?Danny, my point that I think your missing, and why I gave up, was that maybe, just maybe, Mario's statement can be read in a way that says all illegal actions should be dealt with more severely. Everyone keeps talking about what Mario didnt say about Cooke. I ask you to read what he didnt say about it being just the Islanders. The statement that the NHL needs to do a better job in keeping safe our players, as in leaguewide, allows me to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and hope hes not just speaking about NYI, but even guys like Cooke, but while still showing loyalty to his players. Things arent always as black and white, us vs them, as people think. As I said already numerous times, maybe Mario's hands are tied where Cooke is concerned.I didn't bring up Mario's name before in the same way I didn't bring up Blysma's, or Shero's. Cooke helps his hockey team, so they are not wrong to employ him. Now, if those guys wanted to say they had to question being a part of a league that involves dangerous plays, I would question them, when they have the power to stop or slow one of the most dangerous players.I appreciate Mario has his hands tied, publicly, when it comes to Cooke. I also appreciate that if he did try to make his point privately, either to Blysma, Shero or Cooke directly that he had to cool it, then I would never know about that.I hope you're right. I hope Mario meant it about being more than just the Islanders, and he will continue to use his significant influence to push for better reforms to prevent this kind of thing. But he does have a lot of influence, and so far all he's done is done is question the severity of the punishment of people who hurt his team. This was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark. If he did mean to refer to the entire league, I would hope he would be more careful about his timing and choice of words, if it was his intention to have wider influence.Why is there so much venom for Mario? A little respect would be nice.There was a lot of venom in that article. Whenever a journalist questions a public figure not being public enough...well it is unlikely I am going to care what that journalist has to say about that public figure.Article That makes Crawford look awful, though I'm sure there are plenty of coaches that have done that. Seems like the stuff relating to Burke is very questionable. It says Crawford was directed by Burke, but then implies it was indirect, because Burke is big on fighting. That's my feeling about this entire conversation at this point. <grin>You and Arp always quit at the right time.Wow, I'm astounded at the way this seems to be going: because some people might interpret that Lemieux is a hypocrite, his entire message is getting lost. That's seriously F'ed up. How can anyone think this thuggish behaviour is okay because Mario didn't name Cooke directly??????What point does Mario make, that hasn't been made 100 times before? I'm happy for yet another important person to be on the right side. That is awesome, and a step in the right direction. But it isn't anything new either, and until he is seen to be doing something other than making a complaint the day after something negatively effects him, I'm not sure I can give him credit for being on the right side in a useful way. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Wow, I'm astounded at the way this seems to be going: because some people might interpret that Lemieux is a hypocrite, his entire message is getting lost. That's seriously F'ed up. How can anyone think this thuggish behaviour is okay because Mario didn't name Cooke directly??????I don't see anyone saying anything close to that. We all agree the behaviour is terrible and should be prevented. I'm just questioning whether Mario's message had any power or meaning to it. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I don't see anyone saying anything close to that. We all agree the behaviour is terrible and should be prevented. I'm just questioning whether Mario's message had any power or meaning to it.The argument is Mario doesnt get involved at governors meetings, sometimes doesnt even attend..He never speaks out about anything.. That is the argument here IMO.I am willing to give Mario the benefit of the doubt and see what he says to follow up. I am 100% positive right now as we speak the Penguins PR department is drawing up a statement to make Mario look better in the media and amongst his peers. Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I am 100% positive right now as we speak the Penguins PR department is drawing up a statement to make Mario look better in the media and amongst his peers.I dont mean to pick on your use of a word, but I dont think Mario thinks those governors are his "peers". I know I dont.And I think (or maybe its just hope), that he could care less what the other governors (who shall remain nameless, because, you know, they have no balls) think about him. I love that Mario gets called a hypocrite, but some unnamed governor gets credibility for taking shots at Mario. We dont even know who these governors are....what if its the Isles? As for the media, Mario's done a great job of never giving much worry what those buffoons said before, no reason he should care today. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now