Elliott Friedman's Weekly 30 Thoughts

[RGM81]

29 more than Stock, Cherry, & Milbury combined!


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/ellio...-thoughts.html

Given license to avenge Rick DiPietro and Blake Comeau from the previous meeting between these two teams, New York lost all sense of self-control. That Gillies bit with Eric Tangradi was sickening, and the $100,000 fine probably had a lot to do with the door being left open so the massive Islander could taunt the fallen Penguin. Undoubtedly, Lemieux is angry that Matt Martin only got four games for his sucker job on Max Talbot, while Haley got nothing at all. I'm sure Lemieux is also wondering how, after fighting Talbot, Haley was allowed to skate down the ice to get at Brent Johnson. (I really don't like admitting this, but seeing how that game was going, if I was Dan Bylsma, I'd have told Eric Godard to get out there. If I was Godard, I'd have gone without being asked. Yes, Johnson showed he's tough, but Haley's not in his pay grade.)
The only thing missing was the Screaming Buffalo, Clarence Swamptown, chasing Tyler Kennedy. The Islanders saying they were frustrated because the Penguins get preferential treatment is a total non-starter. There is not a team in the NHL - or its fans - who thinks they are treated fairly.
In Game 3 of their famous 1982 playoff series, the Oilers led Los Angeles 5-0 in in the second period. They were openly laughing at the Kings' anemic power play, just like the Penguins laughed at New York when Johnson decked DiPietro. How did LA respond? With six straight goals and "The Miracle on Manchester."
The sad things about Friday's lunacy? Haley's first NHL goal, which should be a momentous occasion, barely registered. Meanwhile, the Islanders were labelled an embarrassment on a night they won 9-3. That should have been the sweetest revenge of all.
30 THOUGHTS
1. Will Commissioner Gary Bettman fine Lemieux?
2. While Lemieux is absolutely right to be angry about the deliberate attempts to injure on Friday night, the Penguins - and their fans - cannot use the excuse that Matt Cooke's collisions come within the "context of the game." Number one, they wouldn't make that argument if Cooke wore another jersey. Number two, ask any other player if Cooke-created injuries are unavoidable or unintentional.
3. Underreported in light of the Andrew Ference/Daniel Paille controversy, Brooks Orpik to The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Cooke's four-game suspension: "I think it's fair. That's a dangerous hit." Good on you, Brooks.

Read the rest at the link above.

[mikecole141]

Friedman's CBC blog is always a good read.