• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Auston Matthews

All I can say is WOW!!!!.  This world is going nuts.  Going back to the 70s and 80s if you didn't get mooned, you saw someone else get it, at least once a week.  friggen crybabys, good for you Matthews.
 
nutman said:
All I can say is WOW!!!!.  This world is going nuts.  Going back to the 70s and 80s if you didn't get mooned, you saw someone else get it, at least once a week.  friggen crybabys, good for you Matthews.

We should definitely bring back mooning. And smoking during pregnancy. You 70s and 80s people had it right.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
nutman said:
All I can say is WOW!!!!.  This world is going nuts.  Going back to the 70s and 80s if you didn't get mooned, you saw someone else get it, at least once a week.  friggen crybabys, good for you Matthews.

We should definitely bring back mooning. And smoking during pregnancy. You 70s and 80s people had it right.

Smoking in the hospital was cool.
 
I don't smoke nor ever did. But a little Humor, and you young guns start crying. Like I said Wow!!!!..  Although I do have to give you babys some credit, as Holloween is still a go as long as you don't dress up like anyone or anything.  Because that would be some kind of harassment toward someone. Dare I say the P word. hahahaha. where did we go so wrong to make so many sensitive people.
 
So to take a break from everyone dunking on Nutman, I thought I'd write something quick about how I haven't really done a good job at expressing my thoughts on this.

To start with, a lot of people who are on Matthews' "side" for lack of a better term are saying things like "Drunken shenanigans aren't a big deal" or "Mooning isn't a big deal" and I think to miss the point here that badly is pretty remarkable. This isn't about the gravity of these things as a crime. This is about Matthews being the kind of person, either through malice or simply ignorance, who thinks it's funny to hassle a security guard. A wealthy young man and his friends messing with someone less powerful than they are because they think it bears no consequence. If you don't understand what that means about him or don't have empathy for the person they did it to, quite frankly, you're a lousy person.

But the difference between me and, I guess, the people who seem really upset by this is that I tend to more or less assume that what this says about Matthews is true of hockey players as a rule and I'm pretty cautiously surprised to learn the opposite, rather than being shocked by this. I get it, some of you buy into Ron MacLean speeches about how Hockey builds Canadian Character or whatever horsecrap they put in Bank commercials on Saturday nights and you watch the Team-Produced Soft Focus videos about how these guys are only ever distracted by hockey by their many hours down at the soup kitchen but look at any group of wealthy young people and you just generally find the same character deficiencies. Music, actors, sports, youtubers now that it's a thing...give young people celebrity and wealth and they almost overwhelmingly turn out to be jerks. Or maybe the money is irrelevant. One of the reasons I moved on from playing sports in high school was I very rarely found myself in a locker room thinking "What a great group of guys this is".

Being a sports fan these days is effectively making a constant moral compromise by having to care about the actions and careers of people who are overwhelmingly likely to be jerks. Players, management, whoever. I don't like what Matthews did but there's nothing new about it. It doesn't really change what I think about him and I don't really think it does for other people. We see it every contract negotiation where the second a player asks for a dollar more than fans would like to see him get he turns from favoured son to greedy, selfish prick. We don't care about these guys as anything other than hockey players and their capacity to help the team win and I don't have the energy to pretend I do.
 
nutman said:
He mooned someone ... for gods sake, and his undies were up. get over it already.

It's not even what he's being charged for.

Also thanks for destroying our housing market and climate/planet.
 
Nik the Trik said:
CarltonTheBear said:
My main point was just that the ways in which a team can disicpline a player are laid out in SPCs, not the CBA.

Right and what I'm saying is that the fact that the CBA specifies a Commissioner's power to do these things tells me that there really isn't a comparable team mechanism. What, to me, the article from PPP confirmed(although again without reading theSPC) is that there is no specific mechanism by which a team can suspend a player for as broad a concept as off-ice conduct and that the ways in which they can suspend a player have to be pretty specific and pre-registered with the league.

Wow, lunch breaks arrives and I check in again and see you guys have been doing some research. Well done.

Seems like it's still not clear whether the Leafs could suspend him for conduct unbecoming.

As for you, nutman, the mooning thing is purely secondary.  He allegedly was with a group of intoxicated males who tried to enter the locked car of a single female.  If true, that is very serious, whether you've emerged from your cave or not.

Again, assuming it happened the way it's been presented, Matthews is lucky nobody actually touched her in any way.  If they had, his career might well have been over ... and no, I'm not hysterical or exaggerating.
 
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Nik the Trik said:
CarltonTheBear said:
My main point was just that the ways in which a team can disicpline a player are laid out in SPCs, not the CBA.

Right and what I'm saying is that the fact that the CBA specifies a Commissioner's power to do these things tells me that there really isn't a comparable team mechanism. What, to me, the article from PPP confirmed(although again without reading theSPC) is that there is no specific mechanism by which a team can suspend a player for as broad a concept as off-ice conduct and that the ways in which they can suspend a player have to be pretty specific and pre-registered with the league.

Wow, lunch breaks arrives and I check in again and see you guys have been doing some research. Well done.

Seems like it's still not clear whether the Leafs could suspend him for conduct unbecoming.

As for you, nutman, the mooning thing is purely secondary.  He allegedly was with a group of intoxicated males who tried to enter the locked car of a single female.  If true, that is very serious, whether you've emerged from your cave or not.

Again, assuming it happened the way it's been presented, Matthews is lucky nobody actually touched her in any way.  If they had, his career might well have been over ... and no, I'm not hysterical or exaggerating.


OK ... That is not good, lets hope he was just there and not part of the act. This I did not know, I will hold my opinion on it until the team finishes there investigation, and updates us.
 
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Seems like it's still not clear whether the Leafs could suspend him for conduct unbecoming.

No, it is. Nobody has suggested there is a specific clause in the SPC that would allow that.
 
louisstamos said:
Zee said:
You have 1 guess to say what Don Cherry's take on this situation is.

I'll take "Blame the Victim" for $300, Alex.


You win.


He?s just a kid,? said Grapes.

Cherry said the security guard should have never complained.

?I am flabbergasted she would report something like that,? said Grapes. ?I just hope she wasn?t looking for publicity.?
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top