I didn't say that (or I didn't mean to), I said the league is saying that. They're basically saying in a net front scrum all bets are off and whatever you do is "part of a net front scrum" and basically "ok".
I think Wilson should be suspended.
I do like him though in general - I like how he plays- but he absolutely crossed a line here - Scott summed up my opinion well.
sorry if there was any confusion in my opinion on this.
but I don't think Wilson should be "out of the league" or even terribly lengthy suspension, but definitely suspended.
How many would you give?
I would have given 5 for any normal player. 30 for Wilson.
I hate the post whistle scrum bullshit generally.
I don't know.
I think maybe there should be a council that determines punishment.
People slam Parros because he was an enforcer and he now determines punishment, but I have no issue with that. a. Parros isn't some meat head, he's a Princeton grad (captain of his team) and b. he was an enforcer at a time when enforcers were there to protect their teammates, not inflict violence on finesse players so he understands the role and the game and when it should be violent and when it shouldn't be (you would think). (and I played against his team growing up all the time, lol - not with him on it - I'm older than him, but we would play the NJ Colonials in tournaments every year)
but he missed on this and the punishment system in the NHL is all over the map inconsistent.
I think they need a council - maybe made up of active players who vote on discipline - who obviously would be biased (but realizing it could come back on them and their team at some point), but until and unless you get a better system of justice it's the whim of one person and I think that's the problem more than anything.
I agree with vanzetti and cokeduplt. big fucking deal, they wrote
whether you agree or disagree with Parros and what the maximum punishment should be in a case such as this isn't the only question rather it's the leagues decision to have a guy such as Parros heading up the NHL's Dept of Player Safety. Just from an optics standpoint alone, it's ridiculous that a goon, and to be perfectly clear he was a goon his entire career, is presiding over "player safety". It brings to mind the old idiom of a fox guarding a hen house. It really tells you a lot about the NHL's so called leadership, doesn't it?
The guys accusing the Rangers of being whiners might have a bit of a point in that the team didn't take care of business with Wilson after he deliberately injured their best player and sucker punched one of their better players.
That is separate and apart from the League's gross misjudgment in handling Wilson's actions. How many times has he crossed the line to cause significant injury, often to the heads and necks of players? Easily double figures?
Back to the Rangers: they have a roster construction problem about which I've been muttering ever since last summer vs CAR. Archer is right: the team is soft, very talented but soft, and it's no accident they have been coming up small as the games begin to matter more, again. Lemieux sent packing--he would have taken on Wilson in a heartbeat, even if he got s..twhaled, and no Trouba. The roster is in a state of imbalance for the NHL end of season.
Boomer this AM posed the hypothetical: who was going to stick up for Artemi and Buch: Zib-no, Buch-no, Foxy-no, Chytil-no, Kappo-no, Laf-no, Kravy-no, no no no no. It's a problem. Btw, his belief is that Parros blew this, big time.
I don't know much about hockey. I just assume that
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
the onus is on the Rangers to take care of business and not the league. The fact they have no one to do that...shame on them
What good would a goon have done, who would have been sitting on the bench at the time because the 1st line was out, while Panarin had his hair pulled and head driven into the ice? How is that a deterrent?
Everyone knows what Wilson is about. Real good power forward that has these moments. The players on the ice need to take care of this...not the front office. The last 2-3 weeks there have been a few incidents (involving different players from opposing teams) where payback was warranted. They don't have those 2-3 players that can drop the gloves and stand up to the real tough guys in the league. That's what is needed instead of the team sending out a statement...just seem right.
That doesn't answer the question at all. In addition, name one time a goon has EVER prevented Wilson type shit. You won't be able to though, because it has NEVER happened. Not in the '10s, '00s, '90s, or 80s. Nuclear deterrents are a unicorn.
RE: I don't know much about hockey. I just assume that
But I just watch the video of the incident on YouTube, and I didn’t see anything particularly unusual. Those guys all fight each other all the time. Big freaking deal.
So, instead of commenting here, why don't you put on your woman's panties, adjust your beret, and shut the hell up?
RE: I don't know much about hockey. I just assume that
There is nothing a goon could have done. My point is the Rangers need to retaliate when this stuff happens and that should come on the ice not off of it. I just appears very weak that the FO has to take care of this when it should be guys on the ice taking care of business.
The statement isn't a substitute for anything on the ice. The organization wouldn't be doing it's job if it didn't say something.
It's ponderous that a known headhunter with a history of precisely this type of stuff got nothing more than a finger wag. Good for them for putting out a strong statement.
RE: RE: I think Parros was a good fit for the role
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
What did Brendan Shanahan do? What did Quintal do?
You can argue under Parros the league has done more to protect players than his two predecessors combined.
the calling of the slash to the hands happened under Parros, the rules change to ejection for head shots happened under Parros. The rules change for referee discretion on match penalties happened under Parros.
You specifically called him out as being unfit because of his hockey enforcer background.
With that I disagree and I think Wilson's action and history warrant a suspension, but I don't think Parros' background has even a little to do with him being ineffective in the role.
No one is asking anyone on the Rangers to be Bob Probert.
But this is still hockey… it’s a violent, physical game and teammates MUST stand up for each other even if that means you get your ass kicked in a fight. It’s the effort and sacrifice that the teammates bang their sticks on the boards for… not the outcome. Tom Wilson should never have been allowed to take another shift without every Ranger on the ice taking a run at him. The season is over… there’s no excuse for it not happening tonight. If they can’t/don’t play the most physical game they’ve ever played tonight then the coach needs to be bounced immediately and the players need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
There was nothing wrong with the statement in a vacuum. But in light of the fact that they hadn’t gotten retribution FIRST, it comes off as a bit whiny.
Parros in that role isn't the same as say putting Chris Simon
in that role just because they were both enforcers. I don't know that any of us have quite enough info to judge his fit/qualifications or even understand the full scope of his authority.
The NHL (Parros included to whatever extent it was his decision) got this wrong, as they have done time and time again with Wilson. And the evidence of that is that he once again injured somebody and once again will return helping his team long before the other player helps theirs. That is a fundamental imbalance of outcome that the NHL as a league needs to correct. Oh and they shouldn't want players to get hurt needlessly.
RE: No one is asking anyone on the Rangers to be Bob Probert.
But this is still hockey… it’s a violent, physical game and teammates MUST stand up for each other even if that means you get your ass kicked in a fight. It’s the effort and sacrifice that the teammates bang their sticks on the boards for… not the outcome. Tom Wilson should never have been allowed to take another shift without every Ranger on the ice taking a run at him. The season is over… there’s no excuse for it not happening tonight. If they can’t/don’t play the most physical game they’ve ever played tonight then the coach needs to be bounced immediately and the players need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
There was nothing wrong with the statement in a vacuum. But in light of the fact that they hadn’t gotten retribution FIRST, it comes off as a bit whiny.
But where does the line exist?? instead of taking a run at him, what if a Ranger slammed wilson down from behind and then broke a stick over his head? that's retribution and worse than what Wilson did.
Put all of that aside though and the league still has an obligation to suspend a player for a dirty play. If a football player bodyslams a QB, he deserves to be suspended regardless of what the opposing team does in return. If a guy swings his helmet at another player, he deserves to be suspended regardless of how the other team responds. That's the key point here. Not retaliating should have no - ZERO - impact on the punishment.
Maybe this is how the organization wanted to handle this and it would have made the situation a lot worse if the Rangers went head hunting after that. Going after Ovi is totally unnecessary unless he was part of it. Let the organization handle it.
RE: Parros in that role isn't the same as say putting Chris Simon
in that role just because they were both enforcers. I don't know that any of us have quite enough info to judge his fit/qualifications or even understand the full scope of his authority.
The NHL (Parros included to whatever extent it was his decision) got this wrong, as they have done time and time again with Wilson. And the evidence of that is that he once again injured somebody and once again will return helping his team long before the other player helps theirs. That is a fundamental imbalance of outcome that the NHL as a league needs to correct. Oh and they shouldn't want players to get hurt needlessly.
no sport does that nor should they necessarily (hold a player out as long as a player they injure) - that's fan fantasy stuff.
it requires gauging intent which is too subjective for a players association to agree to put the fate of their livelihood in the hands of a 3rd party. No league players union would support that nor should they.
Wilson should have been suspended because of his action, not because of an injury that resulted because of them.
Otherwise, if Panarin wasn't hurt, then do you think Wilson's 5k penalty was fine - it was the right decision?
I call serious bullshit on that. I was not thrilled that Wilson was able to play the 3rd period fairly comfortably (except for a really nice hit by Blackwell), but why should any team perpetuate something that doesn’t even resemble the game? Wilson acts like a god damn maniac, so we want our team to play HIS game? That’s not the kind of team this is. Call them soft, call them pussies, whatever, but that is not a game we want the Rangers getting into. Toughness on the ice and toughness after the whistle are different things, and if you want to criticize the Rangers’ roster makeup that they don’t have enough grinders and aren’t hard enough to play against, I won’t argue and would absolutely agree. But going after players with intent to injure or getting in fights with players after dirty plays, is that going to bring Panarin back? Is that going to change how Tom Wilson plays? Please. The guy is a fucking lunatic who is going to keep destroying people until he gets hit where it really hurts, with an extended unpaid suspension. I’ll give him this, he’s a different breed of player. One who is immensely talented, plays very tough, and doesn’t seem to give a crap about his fellow players.
And anyone criticizing the Rangers’ releasing a statement saying THAT is also soft, it’s not about being tough or not. It’s about calling out the leadership of this league that has let this particular player get away with (almost) murder of several players. When Tom Wilson got the call he was being fined $5K, he probably cracked up laughing the second he got off the phone.
I call serious bullshit on that. I was not thrilled that Wilson was able to play the 3rd period fairly comfortably (except for a really nice hit by Blackwell), but why should any team perpetuate something that doesn’t even resemble the game? Wilson acts like a god damn maniac, so we want our team to play HIS game? That’s not the kind of team this is. Call them soft, call them pussies, whatever, but that is not a game we want the Rangers getting into. Toughness on the ice and toughness after the whistle are different things, and if you want to criticize the Rangers’ roster makeup that they don’t have enough grinders and aren’t hard enough to play against, I won’t argue and would absolutely agree. But going after players with intent to injure or getting in fights with players after dirty plays, is that going to bring Panarin back? Is that going to change how Tom Wilson plays? Please. The guy is a fucking lunatic who is going to keep destroying people until he gets hit where it really hurts, with an extended unpaid suspension. I’ll give him this, he’s a different breed of player. One who is immensely talented, plays very tough, and doesn’t seem to give a crap about his fellow players.
And anyone criticizing the Rangers’ releasing a statement saying THAT is also soft, it’s not about being tough or not. It’s about calling out the leadership of this league that has let this particular player get away with (almost) murder of several players. When Tom Wilson got the call he was being fined $5K, he probably cracked up laughing the second he got off the phone.
And knowing the league, the Rangers' players would get stiffer penalties for retaliating against Wilson anyway. The guy's a maniac; it's up to the league to deal with him, not other teams.
Yeah, I think tying a suspension to the length of an injury is silly.
The same action can lead to different results, just because of the randomness of the exact spot or angle where contact is made, or how a guy falls, or whatever. He should be suspended, or not, based on his actions, and how dangerous and reckless they were. I think Wilson should have been suspended for what he did, regardless of whether Panarin got injured or not. If Buchnevich had broken his nose when Wilson punched him while he was facedown on the ice, that wouldn't change things for me either.
I also think it's silly that some are characterizing this as somehow a failing of the Rangers, and they're lame to respond with words rather than fists. Hockey is a physical game, and it's incumbent on teams to be able play that way. If a team's consistently out-muscled and out-checked, that's on them. But it's not on them to be able to deal with egregious cheap shots. Yes, the game allows fighting, and that's a way for players to police each other. But the league has a responsibility to enforce the rules and impose punishment for out of bounds conduct, and Wilson's actions fit that bill the other night (and many other nights). If the Rangers come out and goon it up tonight, is that better for hockey than if Wilson was suspended and we have a more normal game? Certainly doesn't seem that way to me, especially if someone gets hurt. The Caps are sitting one of the best players in the league because the league's lack of action has them concerned about cheap shots - in what world is that good for the game?
Do you think if this happened to MacKinnon or McDavid there wouldn't have been some sort of retaliation on the ice? Of course there would have been. This is the way it works in hockey. The fact the Rangers couldn't handle this on the ice and needed the FO to send a statement just speaks volumes to the toughness they are missing. People can agree or disagree on how the Rangers handled this (or didn't handle this) but I guarantee that this will be addressed in the offseason and you will see a couple of players on the team that can stand up to Wilson or any other player of the like.
n how the Rangers handled this (or didn't handle this) but I guarantee that this will be addressed in the offseason and you will see a couple of players on the team that can stand up to Wilson or any other player of the like.
Yes! More no-talent meatheads like Cody McLeod and Tanner Glass is just what the doctor ordered!
such a Wilson, purposely injures an opponent the player should be suspended until the injured player returns from the injury. That would get rid of the goons and make non goons think about unwarranted violence.
This is better than what we have but this will also bias suspensions towards results rather than intent. Still better than what we have that also biases towards results but I really don't like that.
Do you think if this happened to MacKinnon or McDavid there wouldn't have been some sort of retaliation on the ice? Of course there would have been. This is the way it works in hockey. The fact the Rangers couldn't handle this on the ice and needed the FO to send a statement just speaks volumes to the toughness they are missing. People can agree or disagree on how the Rangers handled this (or didn't handle this) but I guarantee that this will be addressed in the offseason and you will see a couple of players on the team that can stand up to Wilson or any other player of the like.
Dale Rolfe recommends that Dave Schultz be signed by Rangers.
is you beat them next season. The idea that you suddenly need to rumble center ice after one of your players gets hit or you need to sign glacially slow goons to protect your stars is so archaic, it's absurd.
Continue to make additions to the core and let the kids get stronger in the offseason. Beat them next season.
The last thing we need on this team is another Brendan Lemieux taking two penalties a game.
RE: RE: RE: I think Parros was a good fit for the role
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
What did Brendan Shanahan do? What did Quintal do?
You can argue under Parros the league has done more to protect players than his two predecessors combined.
the calling of the slash to the hands happened under Parros, the rules change to ejection for head shots happened under Parros. The rules change for referee discretion on match penalties happened under Parros.
You specifically called him out as being unfit because of his hockey enforcer background.
With that I disagree and I think Wilson's action and history warrant a suspension, but I don't think Parros' background has even a little to do with him being ineffective in the role.
Why not ask what Bozo the Clown and Krusty the Clown while you're at it? We're talking about the here and now and a specific incident that even you stated was suspension worthy but for some reason or another you're goal is to win an ether debate.
Perhaps, in theory, he's not fit for the position being that he may have a soft spot for the nearly extinct position of goon/enforcer. Again, that's clearly a theory, and one that others agree with as well, but you're going to take the contrarian point of view. Good for you, I say.
You've used the phrase, "I don't think" which tells me you don't know just as I don't know what's going through Parros mind. We do however know he made a living as a goon/enforcer and I'm more than happy to connect the dots.
At any rate, the fact remains that Wilson did not receive the proper punishment for his actions. As a business, the league simply has to do all they can to protect their paid professionals from an out of control maniac and that's what Wilson clearly was. Parros did not step up and do the right thing. Period. End of story.
RE: Yeah, I think tying a suspension to the length of an injury is silly.
The same action can lead to different results, just because of the randomness of the exact spot or angle where contact is made, or how a guy falls, or whatever. He should be suspended, or not, based on his actions, and how dangerous and reckless they were. I think Wilson should have been suspended for what he did, regardless of whether Panarin got injured or not. If Buchnevich had broken his nose when Wilson punched him while he was facedown on the ice, that wouldn't change things for me either.
I also think it's silly that some are characterizing this as somehow a failing of the Rangers, and they're lame to respond with words rather than fists. Hockey is a physical game, and it's incumbent on teams to be able play that way. If a team's consistently out-muscled and out-checked, that's on them. But it's not on them to be able to deal with egregious cheap shots. Yes, the game allows fighting, and that's a way for players to police each other. But the league has a responsibility to enforce the rules and impose punishment for out of bounds conduct, and Wilson's actions fit that bill the other night (and many other nights). If the Rangers come out and goon it up tonight, is that better for hockey than if Wilson was suspended and we have a more normal game? Certainly doesn't seem that way to me, especially if someone gets hurt. The Caps are sitting one of the best players in the league because the league's lack of action has them concerned about cheap shots - in what world is that good for the game?
Essentially the same point I was trying to make, but described in a much better fashion haha. Honestly if I’m Laviolette, I’m scratching Wilson tonight. Take the drama out of the game, Caps are playing for home ice and have a lot to lose. You put Wilson in and the game turns into a bloodbath, you’re risking the health of your players that you will be relying on to win 16 physical games in the next few months.
PJ I'm not saying they should hold Wilson out as long as Panarin
no sport does that nor should they necessarily (hold a player out as long as a player they injure) - that's fan fantasy stuff.
it requires gauging intent which is too subjective for a players association to agree to put the fate of their livelihood in the hands of a 3rd party. No league players union would support that nor should they.
Wilson should have been suspended because of his action, not because of an injury that resulted because of them.
Otherwise, if Panarin wasn't hurt, then do you think Wilson's 5k penalty was fine - it was the right decision?
I am saying suspensions for repeat offenders of player safety rules should see escalating punishments. Just that it is a commentary on a poorly calibrated punishment system that Tom Wilson has cost opponents far more games played than he himself has lost.
The entire point of punishments are to disincentivize poor behaviors. Would you say that Tom Wilson has been disincentivized from any of his antics over the past 5 years in particular?
He's been suspended 5x, fined several others, and escaped consequence on some hits that are just as egregious as the others (like the one that ended Lubo Visnovskys career). The fact that he has twice had incidents within weeks of his previous incident seems to make clear nothing about the current system is changing his behavior. Tom Wilson NHL discipline history: Fines, suspensions, other hits - ( New Window )
this guy ended the season of the Rangers best player and they did nothing. A crosscheck to the mouth was the least they could have done. We'd better see Wilson's chicklets all over the fucking ice tonight. Or just don't bother showing up. Until you punch a bully right in his cocksucker, he will keep bullying you.
We are not talking about goons. It's standing up for your teammate. The Rangers refused to do anything to Wilson (or any other player). The FO has been talking about adding some of this toughness to the team but we are still waiting. You can add all the skill you want but w/o having the players that can push back and win battles (all types of them) this team is going nowhere. The FO making a statement like that doesn't look good for the organization. Can you see the Bruins, Isles, Avs, etc... sending out something similar? I don't think so.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I think Parros was a good fit for the role
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
What did Brendan Shanahan do? What did Quintal do?
You can argue under Parros the league has done more to protect players than his two predecessors combined.
the calling of the slash to the hands happened under Parros, the rules change to ejection for head shots happened under Parros. The rules change for referee discretion on match penalties happened under Parros.
You specifically called him out as being unfit because of his hockey enforcer background.
With that I disagree and I think Wilson's action and history warrant a suspension, but I don't think Parros' background has even a little to do with him being ineffective in the role.
Why not ask what Bozo the Clown and Krusty the Clown while you're at it? We're talking about the here and now and a specific incident that even you stated was suspension worthy but for some reason or another you're goal is to win an ether debate.
Perhaps, in theory, he's not fit for the position being that he may have a soft spot for the nearly extinct position of goon/enforcer. Again, that's clearly a theory, and one that others agree with as well, but you're going to take the contrarian point of view. Good for you, I say.
You've used the phrase, "I don't think" which tells me you don't know just as I don't know what's going through Parros mind. We do however know he made a living as a goon/enforcer and I'm more than happy to connect the dots.
At any rate, the fact remains that Wilson did not receive the proper punishment for his actions. As a business, the league simply has to do all they can to protect their paid professionals from an out of control maniac and that's what Wilson clearly was. Parros did not step up and do the right thing. Period. End of story.
Bozo and Krusty the clown?
You're not too bright are you?
You personally suggested Parros was a bad fit for the role he has because of his NHL role.
So, I named to you the two people before Parros who had his job. And did less than Parros to improve player safety. and neither one was an NHL "enforcer"
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I think Parros was a good fit for the role
You personally suggested Parros was a bad fit for the role he has because of his NHL role.
So, I named to you the two people before Parros who had his job. And did less than Parros to improve player safety. and neither one was an NHL "enforcer"
You want more? We humored you for 6 fights (at least 2 more than were really necessary). We are still trying to claim 1st in the East and we have the playoffs to look forward to.
You actually think your team is tough? If one player stepped up to Wilson last game that would have been great. Instead it took days of criticism about how the Rangers are soft and they don't stand up for each other. What happened tonight was embarrassing. You should be embarrassed. I would actually feel embarrassed for you but as a former Whalers fan who moved to DC the only emotion I can muster for the Rangers is dislike. Hate I save for the Flyers and Pens.
You want more? We humored you for 6 fights (at least 2 more than were really necessary). We are still trying to claim 1st in the East and we have the playoffs to look forward to.
You actually think your team is tough? If one player stepped up to Wilson last game that would have been great. Instead it took days of criticism about how the Rangers are soft and they don't stand up for each other. What happened tonight was embarrassing. You should be embarrassed. I would actually feel embarrassed for you but as a former Whalers fan who moved to DC the only emotion I can muster for the Rangers is dislike. Hate I save for the Flyers and Pens.
In comment 15255570 rnargi said:
Quote:
In comment 15255443 Tom in DC said:
Quote:
in the 1st minute. Is your bloodlust satisfied?
Buch's crosscheck to the fuck face of that asshole Cap helped...butvi want more. How's that?
I'm embarrassed that your fucking team continues to employ a total shithead in Tom Wilson
Root for the Skin's? Never. I grew up in CT rooting for the Giants and Whalers. When I moved to DC, the Whalers had left, some of my college alums played for the Caps, and they were terrible so tickets were cheap.
I'm sorry I got a little Trollish, and frankly, we are both looking at things through home team colored glasses.
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
What did Brendan Shanahan do? What did Quintal do?
You can argue under Parros the league has done more to protect players than his two predecessors combined.
the calling of the slash to the hands happened under Parros, the rules change to ejection for head shots happened under Parros. The rules change for referee discretion on match penalties happened under Parros.
You specifically called him out as being unfit because of his hockey enforcer background.
With that I disagree and I think Wilson's action and history warrant a suspension, but I don't think Parros' background has even a little to do with him being ineffective in the role.
Why not ask what Bozo the Clown and Krusty the Clown while you're at it? We're talking about the here and now and a specific incident that even you stated was suspension worthy but for some reason or another you're goal is to win an ether debate.
Perhaps, in theory, he's not fit for the position being that he may have a soft spot for the nearly extinct position of goon/enforcer. Again, that's clearly a theory, and one that others agree with as well, but you're going to take the contrarian point of view. Good for you, I say.
You've used the phrase, "I don't think" which tells me you don't know just as I don't know what's going through Parros mind. We do however know he made a living as a goon/enforcer and I'm more than happy to connect the dots.
At any rate, the fact remains that Wilson did not receive the proper punishment for his actions. As a business, the league simply has to do all they can to protect their paid professionals from an out of control maniac and that's what Wilson clearly was. Parros did not step up and do the right thing. Period. End of story.
Bozo and Krusty the clown?
You're not too bright are you?
You personally suggested Parros was a bad fit for the role he has because of his NHL role.
So, I named to you the two people before Parros who had his job. And did less than Parros to improve player safety. and neither one was an NHL "enforcer"
#1 - I was being facetious with the Bozo the Clown & Krusty the Clown comment but since you have penchant for taking yourself too seriously, it's clear that one sailed over your head. The point was, Shanny & Quintal had nothing to do with the "here and now", and this "specific incident", as I clearly stated. Perhaps reading comprehension is an issue?
#2 - Insults? Well, I think that says a lot more about you and your, ability or inability, to manage yourself in a discussion/debate.
#3 - I "personally" suggested Parros was a bad fit for the role? As opposed to what, impersonally? I stated my theoretical reasoning but I guess you "personally" had an issue comprehending that too.
Lastly, it's ok to have a difference of opinion and thought. That's what this board is all about, right?
So they release some bitch add statement. It’s hockey not badminton. Take care of Wilson next time you meet
At least your takes are consistently moronic across multiple sports.
Quote:
In comment 15254115 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I didn't say that (or I didn't mean to), I said the league is saying that. They're basically saying in a net front scrum all bets are off and whatever you do is "part of a net front scrum" and basically "ok".
I think Wilson should be suspended.
I do like him though in general - I like how he plays- but he absolutely crossed a line here - Scott summed up my opinion well.
sorry if there was any confusion in my opinion on this.
but I don't think Wilson should be "out of the league" or even terribly lengthy suspension, but definitely suspended.
How many would you give?
I would have given 5 for any normal player. 30 for Wilson.
I hate the post whistle scrum bullshit generally.
I don't know.
I think maybe there should be a council that determines punishment.
People slam Parros because he was an enforcer and he now determines punishment, but I have no issue with that. a. Parros isn't some meat head, he's a Princeton grad (captain of his team) and b. he was an enforcer at a time when enforcers were there to protect their teammates, not inflict violence on finesse players so he understands the role and the game and when it should be violent and when it shouldn't be (you would think). (and I played against his team growing up all the time, lol - not with him on it - I'm older than him, but we would play the NJ Colonials in tournaments every year)
but he missed on this and the punishment system in the NHL is all over the map inconsistent.
I think they need a council - maybe made up of active players who vote on discipline - who obviously would be biased (but realizing it could come back on them and their team at some point), but until and unless you get a better system of justice it's the whim of one person and I think that's the problem more than anything.
anyone who thinks they anybody can "go after" Ovechkin has clearly never seen him. He's huge and he plays with a mean streak.
LOL, correct!
That is separate and apart from the League's gross misjudgment in handling Wilson's actions. How many times has he crossed the line to cause significant injury, often to the heads and necks of players? Easily double figures?
Back to the Rangers: they have a roster construction problem about which I've been muttering ever since last summer vs CAR. Archer is right: the team is soft, very talented but soft, and it's no accident they have been coming up small as the games begin to matter more, again. Lemieux sent packing--he would have taken on Wilson in a heartbeat, even if he got s..twhaled, and no Trouba. The roster is in a state of imbalance for the NHL end of season.
Boomer this AM posed the hypothetical: who was going to stick up for Artemi and Buch: Zib-no, Buch-no, Foxy-no, Chytil-no, Kappo-no, Laf-no, Kravy-no, no no no no. It's a problem. Btw, his belief is that Parros blew this, big time.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
What good would a goon have done, who would have been sitting on the bench at the time because the 1st line was out, while Panarin had his hair pulled and head driven into the ice? How is that a deterrent?
I'm a huge hockey fan and I would be totally fine with the league banning fighting entirely. I do not find it entertaining at all, personally.
So, instead of commenting here, why don't you put on your woman's panties, adjust your beret, and shut the hell up?
You are 100% correct. You know nothing about hockey.
The statement isn't a substitute for anything on the ice. The organization wouldn't be doing it's job if it didn't say something.
It's ponderous that a known headhunter with a history of precisely this type of stuff got nothing more than a finger wag. Good for them for putting out a strong statement.
Quote:
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
What did Brendan Shanahan do? What did Quintal do?
You can argue under Parros the league has done more to protect players than his two predecessors combined.
the calling of the slash to the hands happened under Parros, the rules change to ejection for head shots happened under Parros. The rules change for referee discretion on match penalties happened under Parros.
You specifically called him out as being unfit because of his hockey enforcer background.
With that I disagree and I think Wilson's action and history warrant a suspension, but I don't think Parros' background has even a little to do with him being ineffective in the role.
There was nothing wrong with the statement in a vacuum. But in light of the fact that they hadn’t gotten retribution FIRST, it comes off as a bit whiny.
The NHL (Parros included to whatever extent it was his decision) got this wrong, as they have done time and time again with Wilson. And the evidence of that is that he once again injured somebody and once again will return helping his team long before the other player helps theirs. That is a fundamental imbalance of outcome that the NHL as a league needs to correct. Oh and they shouldn't want players to get hurt needlessly.
There was nothing wrong with the statement in a vacuum. But in light of the fact that they hadn’t gotten retribution FIRST, it comes off as a bit whiny.
But where does the line exist?? instead of taking a run at him, what if a Ranger slammed wilson down from behind and then broke a stick over his head? that's retribution and worse than what Wilson did.
Put all of that aside though and the league still has an obligation to suspend a player for a dirty play. If a football player bodyslams a QB, he deserves to be suspended regardless of what the opposing team does in return. If a guy swings his helmet at another player, he deserves to be suspended regardless of how the other team responds. That's the key point here. Not retaliating should have no - ZERO - impact on the punishment.
The NHL (Parros included to whatever extent it was his decision) got this wrong, as they have done time and time again with Wilson. And the evidence of that is that he once again injured somebody and once again will return helping his team long before the other player helps theirs. That is a fundamental imbalance of outcome that the NHL as a league needs to correct. Oh and they shouldn't want players to get hurt needlessly.
no sport does that nor should they necessarily (hold a player out as long as a player they injure) - that's fan fantasy stuff.
it requires gauging intent which is too subjective for a players association to agree to put the fate of their livelihood in the hands of a 3rd party. No league players union would support that nor should they.
Wilson should have been suspended because of his action, not because of an injury that resulted because of them.
Otherwise, if Panarin wasn't hurt, then do you think Wilson's 5k penalty was fine - it was the right decision?
And anyone criticizing the Rangers’ releasing a statement saying THAT is also soft, it’s not about being tough or not. It’s about calling out the leadership of this league that has let this particular player get away with (almost) murder of several players. When Tom Wilson got the call he was being fined $5K, he probably cracked up laughing the second he got off the phone.
I do predict something happens though, regardless of what anyone says - league warnings, whatever, hockey has a history of "policing itself"
And anyone criticizing the Rangers’ releasing a statement saying THAT is also soft, it’s not about being tough or not. It’s about calling out the leadership of this league that has let this particular player get away with (almost) murder of several players. When Tom Wilson got the call he was being fined $5K, he probably cracked up laughing the second he got off the phone.
And knowing the league, the Rangers' players would get stiffer penalties for retaliating against Wilson anyway. The guy's a maniac; it's up to the league to deal with him, not other teams.
I also think it's silly that some are characterizing this as somehow a failing of the Rangers, and they're lame to respond with words rather than fists. Hockey is a physical game, and it's incumbent on teams to be able play that way. If a team's consistently out-muscled and out-checked, that's on them. But it's not on them to be able to deal with egregious cheap shots. Yes, the game allows fighting, and that's a way for players to police each other. But the league has a responsibility to enforce the rules and impose punishment for out of bounds conduct, and Wilson's actions fit that bill the other night (and many other nights). If the Rangers come out and goon it up tonight, is that better for hockey than if Wilson was suspended and we have a more normal game? Certainly doesn't seem that way to me, especially if someone gets hurt. The Caps are sitting one of the best players in the league because the league's lack of action has them concerned about cheap shots - in what world is that good for the game?
Yes! More no-talent meatheads like Cody McLeod and Tanner Glass is just what the doctor ordered!
This is better than what we have but this will also bias suspensions towards results rather than intent. Still better than what we have that also biases towards results but I really don't like that.
Continue to make additions to the core and let the kids get stronger in the offseason. Beat them next season.
The last thing we need on this team is another Brendan Lemieux taking two penalties a game.
Quote:
In comment 15254289 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
What did Brendan Shanahan do? What did Quintal do?
You can argue under Parros the league has done more to protect players than his two predecessors combined.
the calling of the slash to the hands happened under Parros, the rules change to ejection for head shots happened under Parros. The rules change for referee discretion on match penalties happened under Parros.
You specifically called him out as being unfit because of his hockey enforcer background.
With that I disagree and I think Wilson's action and history warrant a suspension, but I don't think Parros' background has even a little to do with him being ineffective in the role.
Why not ask what Bozo the Clown and Krusty the Clown while you're at it? We're talking about the here and now and a specific incident that even you stated was suspension worthy but for some reason or another you're goal is to win an ether debate.
Perhaps, in theory, he's not fit for the position being that he may have a soft spot for the nearly extinct position of goon/enforcer. Again, that's clearly a theory, and one that others agree with as well, but you're going to take the contrarian point of view. Good for you, I say.
You've used the phrase, "I don't think" which tells me you don't know just as I don't know what's going through Parros mind. We do however know he made a living as a goon/enforcer and I'm more than happy to connect the dots.
At any rate, the fact remains that Wilson did not receive the proper punishment for his actions. As a business, the league simply has to do all they can to protect their paid professionals from an out of control maniac and that's what Wilson clearly was. Parros did not step up and do the right thing. Period. End of story.
I also think it's silly that some are characterizing this as somehow a failing of the Rangers, and they're lame to respond with words rather than fists. Hockey is a physical game, and it's incumbent on teams to be able play that way. If a team's consistently out-muscled and out-checked, that's on them. But it's not on them to be able to deal with egregious cheap shots. Yes, the game allows fighting, and that's a way for players to police each other. But the league has a responsibility to enforce the rules and impose punishment for out of bounds conduct, and Wilson's actions fit that bill the other night (and many other nights). If the Rangers come out and goon it up tonight, is that better for hockey than if Wilson was suspended and we have a more normal game? Certainly doesn't seem that way to me, especially if someone gets hurt. The Caps are sitting one of the best players in the league because the league's lack of action has them concerned about cheap shots - in what world is that good for the game?
Essentially the same point I was trying to make, but described in a much better fashion haha. Honestly if I’m Laviolette, I’m scratching Wilson tonight. Take the drama out of the game, Caps are playing for home ice and have a lot to lose. You put Wilson in and the game turns into a bloodbath, you’re risking the health of your players that you will be relying on to win 16 physical games in the next few months.
no sport does that nor should they necessarily (hold a player out as long as a player they injure) - that's fan fantasy stuff.
it requires gauging intent which is too subjective for a players association to agree to put the fate of their livelihood in the hands of a 3rd party. No league players union would support that nor should they.
Wilson should have been suspended because of his action, not because of an injury that resulted because of them.
Otherwise, if Panarin wasn't hurt, then do you think Wilson's 5k penalty was fine - it was the right decision?
I am saying suspensions for repeat offenders of player safety rules should see escalating punishments. Just that it is a commentary on a poorly calibrated punishment system that Tom Wilson has cost opponents far more games played than he himself has lost.
The entire point of punishments are to disincentivize poor behaviors. Would you say that Tom Wilson has been disincentivized from any of his antics over the past 5 years in particular?
He's been suspended 5x, fined several others, and escaped consequence on some hits that are just as egregious as the others (like the one that ended Lubo Visnovskys career). The fact that he has twice had incidents within weeks of his previous incident seems to make clear nothing about the current system is changing his behavior.
Tom Wilson NHL discipline history: Fines, suspensions, other hits - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 15254315 Stufftherun said:
Quote:
In comment 15254289 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
What did Brendan Shanahan do? What did Quintal do?
You can argue under Parros the league has done more to protect players than his two predecessors combined.
the calling of the slash to the hands happened under Parros, the rules change to ejection for head shots happened under Parros. The rules change for referee discretion on match penalties happened under Parros.
You specifically called him out as being unfit because of his hockey enforcer background.
With that I disagree and I think Wilson's action and history warrant a suspension, but I don't think Parros' background has even a little to do with him being ineffective in the role.
Why not ask what Bozo the Clown and Krusty the Clown while you're at it? We're talking about the here and now and a specific incident that even you stated was suspension worthy but for some reason or another you're goal is to win an ether debate.
Perhaps, in theory, he's not fit for the position being that he may have a soft spot for the nearly extinct position of goon/enforcer. Again, that's clearly a theory, and one that others agree with as well, but you're going to take the contrarian point of view. Good for you, I say.
You've used the phrase, "I don't think" which tells me you don't know just as I don't know what's going through Parros mind. We do however know he made a living as a goon/enforcer and I'm more than happy to connect the dots.
At any rate, the fact remains that Wilson did not receive the proper punishment for his actions. As a business, the league simply has to do all they can to protect their paid professionals from an out of control maniac and that's what Wilson clearly was. Parros did not step up and do the right thing. Period. End of story.
Bozo and Krusty the clown?
You're not too bright are you?
You personally suggested Parros was a bad fit for the role he has because of his NHL role.
So, I named to you the two people before Parros who had his job. And did less than Parros to improve player safety. and neither one was an NHL "enforcer"
Quote:
In comment 15254492 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
Bozo and Krusty the clown?
You're not too bright are you?
You personally suggested Parros was a bad fit for the role he has because of his NHL role.
So, I named to you the two people before Parros who had his job. And did less than Parros to improve player safety. and neither one was an NHL "enforcer"
You're wasting your time
Buch's crosscheck to the fuck face of that asshole Cap helped...butvi want more. How's that?
You actually think your team is tough? If one player stepped up to Wilson last game that would have been great. Instead it took days of criticism about how the Rangers are soft and they don't stand up for each other. What happened tonight was embarrassing. You should be embarrassed. I would actually feel embarrassed for you but as a former Whalers fan who moved to DC the only emotion I can muster for the Rangers is dislike. Hate I save for the Flyers and Pens.
In comment 15255570 rnargi said:
Quote:
in the 1st minute. Is your bloodlust satisfied?
Buch's crosscheck to the fuck face of that asshole Cap helped...butvi want more. How's that?
You actually think your team is tough? If one player stepped up to Wilson last game that would have been great. Instead it took days of criticism about how the Rangers are soft and they don't stand up for each other. What happened tonight was embarrassing. You should be embarrassed. I would actually feel embarrassed for you but as a former Whalers fan who moved to DC the only emotion I can muster for the Rangers is dislike. Hate I save for the Flyers and Pens.
In comment 15255570 rnargi said:
Quote:
In comment 15255443 Tom in DC said:
Quote:
in the 1st minute. Is your bloodlust satisfied?
Buch's crosscheck to the fuck face of that asshole Cap helped...butvi want more. How's that?
I'm embarrassed that your fucking team continues to employ a total shithead in Tom Wilson
DC fan.
Go root for the Skins while you're at it. Don't bother posting anything about Giants football. Oh, what a surprise. Troll. Fuck off.
I'm sorry I got a little Trollish, and frankly, we are both looking at things through home team colored glasses.
In comment 15255919 Bricktop said:
Quote:
in the 1st minute. Is your bloodlust satisfied?
DC fan.
Go root for the Skins while you're at it. Don't bother posting anything about Giants football. Oh, what a surprise. Troll. Fuck off.
Quote:
In comment 15254492 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 15254315 Stufftherun said:
Quote:
In comment 15254289 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I don't think you're thinking of it the right way if you view it as the fox watching the hen house.
Parros role as an enforcer (in many's view) was to keep the stuff like Wilson did out of the game, what better person to discipline people who do what Wilson did than a guy whose job was to make him answer for it with his fists.
Plus, Brendan Shanahan used to be in that role (head of player discipline) Parros had 159 fighting majors in his career, Shanahan had 90 (Stephane Quintal was in between Shanahan and Parros)
yet, you think Parros is uniquely unqualified for the role because he dropped the gloves.
You should go back and do some of the reading about why it made perfect sense at that time that someone like Parros was the discipline czar.
I just think the whole process is broken - it shouldn't be a one person decision, there needs to be consistency.
You have your perspective and I have mine. Bottom line is, Parros is the Senior VP and/or Head of the Dept of Player Safety, you pick the title. If you think he doesn't have a voice or authority to drive change and make warranted decisions then perhaps you can tell us who does?
What Tom Wilson did on Monday night was outside of the lines and as everyone plainly knows, he's a repeat offender, and without the proper punitive measures he'll continue to be a danger to other players on the ice.
Back to Parros. Job #1, as I see it, is clearly stated in his title and if you think he's done enough to protect players like Carlo, Buchnevich and Panarin, then perhaps it's you that needs to go back and do some reading. Honestly, do you feel he's done anything to advance player safety? Perhaps the concussions Parros suffered are impacting his cognitive abilities and ultimately the ability to make the right call and drive change.
What did Brendan Shanahan do? What did Quintal do?
You can argue under Parros the league has done more to protect players than his two predecessors combined.
the calling of the slash to the hands happened under Parros, the rules change to ejection for head shots happened under Parros. The rules change for referee discretion on match penalties happened under Parros.
You specifically called him out as being unfit because of his hockey enforcer background.
With that I disagree and I think Wilson's action and history warrant a suspension, but I don't think Parros' background has even a little to do with him being ineffective in the role.
Why not ask what Bozo the Clown and Krusty the Clown while you're at it? We're talking about the here and now and a specific incident that even you stated was suspension worthy but for some reason or another you're goal is to win an ether debate.
Perhaps, in theory, he's not fit for the position being that he may have a soft spot for the nearly extinct position of goon/enforcer. Again, that's clearly a theory, and one that others agree with as well, but you're going to take the contrarian point of view. Good for you, I say.
You've used the phrase, "I don't think" which tells me you don't know just as I don't know what's going through Parros mind. We do however know he made a living as a goon/enforcer and I'm more than happy to connect the dots.
At any rate, the fact remains that Wilson did not receive the proper punishment for his actions. As a business, the league simply has to do all they can to protect their paid professionals from an out of control maniac and that's what Wilson clearly was. Parros did not step up and do the right thing. Period. End of story.
Bozo and Krusty the clown?
You're not too bright are you?
You personally suggested Parros was a bad fit for the role he has because of his NHL role.
So, I named to you the two people before Parros who had his job. And did less than Parros to improve player safety. and neither one was an NHL "enforcer"
#1 - I was being facetious with the Bozo the Clown & Krusty the Clown comment but since you have penchant for taking yourself too seriously, it's clear that one sailed over your head. The point was, Shanny & Quintal had nothing to do with the "here and now", and this "specific incident", as I clearly stated. Perhaps reading comprehension is an issue?
#2 - Insults? Well, I think that says a lot more about you and your, ability or inability, to manage yourself in a discussion/debate.
#3 - I "personally" suggested Parros was a bad fit for the role? As opposed to what, impersonally? I stated my theoretical reasoning but I guess you "personally" had an issue comprehending that too.
Lastly, it's ok to have a difference of opinion and thought. That's what this board is all about, right?