Waived: Colton Orr

[rdowdall]

The reason there has to be a dance partner to put Orr in is because the instigator stops Orr from fighting a guy like Carcillo.  So with the instigator, if there is no dance partner for Orr, then there is no point to put him in the game. 

However, if the instigator was not there, then Orr could go out against Carcillo and fight him if he did something to one of his team mates.

This logic has never made sense to me. The issue isn't the instigator. It's the realities of how the league sees fighting. If Orr fighting a guy like Carcillo had real value than an additional two minute minor isn't going to be a really significant deterrent. Even a game misconduct is pretty meaningless when a guy like Orr will only play 5 minutes a night anyway.

The thing that prevents Orr from fighting an unwilling participant is the resulting suspension, not the instigator. If Orr beats up a guy who doesn't want to fight he'll get suspended and lose a big chunk of his pay. That would be true with or without the instigator.

How could anyone complain about that? For that not to be true you'd essentially have to be on board with one player pummeling another player for whatever reason he decided was reasonable.

I'm pretty sure that Semenko beat the hell out of someone who didn't want to fight him just for looking at Gretzky the wrong way.

Besides that, I don't take issue with Orr being waived or fighting being removed from the game entirely.  I take issue with people saying that Burke is "whining" about fighting being taken out of the game.  I don't think that's what he is "whining" about.  I think he is upset that a guy who is perceived to have class and character, namely Orr, can't play in this league, but a  guy who is perceived to not have class or character, namely Downie, can.  In my opinion, he's saying, we need to be more diligent in removing the types of players that will intentionally hurt someone, or the rats as he calls them.  He's using the fact that Orr is a nice guy as the basis of his platform.

 

[Arn]

The boy could play hockey too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZHx9WcMobo


;-)

Glad he cleared waivers. Hopefully now he can do more of that in the AHL

 

[Britishbulldog]

The boy could play hockey too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZHx9WcMobo


;-)

Glad he cleared waivers. Hopefully now he can do more of that in the AHL

I am really hoping that Colton drinks some of the juice that Matt Cooke has found because if Orr learns to play a bit of hockey and not participate in staged fights, it will protect his brain as well as possibly give him another shot at professional hockey. 

Eager calmed down a bit and has been a more useful 4th line player although he still hurt Edmonton the other night with atleast 2 stupid roughing penalties.

 

[Britishbulldog]

The problem Nik is that once you get 3 instigators in a season the player gets suspended.

Again, that's not specific to the instigator rule. If a player drops the gloves and starts punching another player repeatedly while the other player had no interest in a fight the guy is getting suspended regardless. 4 and 6 game suspensions seem pretty light.

The deterrent to the kinds of actions we're talking about are still suspensions from the league. Having an issue with that, as I said, is an endorsement of letting players beat up other unwilling players without fear of reprisal from the league.

I feel that vigilante justice is sometimes needed for (a minority) of certain mindsets (I guess who Burke calls "rats").    Without getting too personal I have seen it keep incidents from getting out of hand as people involved didn't want to open Pandora's box.  It seems most here feel the opposite and only want players in the league from a Utopian society who respect general authority and send all the others home through suspensions.  I just don't think that EVERY player will see suspension as a deterrent to commit an offense. 

I also may be getting old and cynical though so...

 

[Kin]

I'm pretty sure that Semenko beat the hell out of someone who didn't want to fight him just for looking at Gretzky the wrong way.

And Todd Bertuzzi broke Steve Moore's neck because he didn't like the way Moore checked Markus Naslund. Hooray! Hockey fun! Let's get more of that in the game! Players make the best decisions!

I think he is upset that a guy who is perceived to have class and character, namely Orr, can't play in this league, but a  guy who is perceived to not have class or character, namely Downie, can.

That's because Downie is a NHL calibre hockey player. Orr isn't. If Burke is upset that the dividing line between guys who can play in the NHL and those that can't isn't one of class and character but rather one of the fundamental ability to play the sport then he may be in the wrong line of work.

 

[Kin]

I feel that vigilante justice is sometimes needed for (a minority) of certain mindsets (I guess who Burke calls "rats").

Like it or not the league remembers what Bertuzzi did to Steve Moore. Because the people who run the league are pretty reasonable, they know that's precisely what can happen if you let the meatheads decide what is and isn't acceptable conduct and what the appropriate consequence is for it. This isn't a minor issue. If the League fosters an environment where that sort of thing is not only allowable but encouraged they could really be liable for another similar incident.

Not everyone is going to see the same plays the same way. I'm sure there were some guys on Ottawa's bench who took exception with Chad Kilger's hit on Alfredsson. Should they have been allowed to go charging after Kilger? If not, how in the world do you ensure that vigilante justice is only applied correctly and how would you ever get people to agree to a standard?t There's no way to have a consistent rule in place that allows Colton Orr to beat up Sean Avery but doesn't also allow Sean Avery to beat up Phil Kessel.

That's why vigilantism is a bad thing. You're not going to leave those kinds of decisions, that can have real consequences, up to the punching bags of the league.

 

[rdowdall]

And Todd Bertuzzi broke Steve Moore's neck because he didn't like the way Moore checked Markus Naslund. Hooray! Hockey fun! Let's get more of that in the game! Players make the best decisions!

You said that a fighter couldn't just grab a guy and stop.  I was merely referencing history to say that he could and it has, as Gretzky went around pretty much untouched until the instigator rule came in to affect.  And yes, that is what Bertuzzi did, when the guy wouldn't fight him.  I don't know why Bertuzzi made the choice that he did.  If he cared that much about getting him, why not just ignore the rule and pummel the guy anyways like Cam Neely on Claude Lemieux.

I never said it was right.  I am not condoning fighting.  I am not saying there should be fighting.  If a person is going to criticize Burke, then criticize him for what he is actually saying.

That's because Downie is a NHL calibre hockey player. Orr isn't. If Burke is upset that the dividing line between guys who can play in the NHL and those that can't isn't one of class and character but rather one of the fundamental ability to play the sport then he may be in the wrong line of work.

Again as I said, just because he can fundamentally play hockey does not give him the right to recklessly endanger others on the ice.  That's like saying it's okay if rich people kill others because they have the money to afford expensive lawyers to get them off.  And like you said before, Bertuzzi broke a guys neck, and he was a pretty skilled hockey player, but he should have been out of the game after that incident.

 

[rdowdall]

I feel that vigilante justice is sometimes needed for (a minority) of certain mindsets (I guess who Burke calls "rats").

Like it or not the league remembers what Bertuzzi did to Steve Moore. Because the people who run the league are pretty reasonable, they know that's precisely what can happen if you let the meatheads decide what is and isn't acceptable conduct and what the appropriate consequence is for it. This isn't a minor issue. If the League fosters an environment where that sort of thing is not only allowable but encouraged they could really be liable for another similar incident.

Not everyone is going to see the same plays the same way. I'm sure there were some guys on Ottawa's bench who took exception with Chad Kilger's hit on Alfredsson. Should they have been allowed to go charging after Kilger? If not, how in the world do you ensure that vigilante justice is only applied correctly and how would you ever get people to agree to a standard?t There's no way to have a consistent rule in place that allows Colton Orr to beat up Sean Avery but doesn't also allow Sean Avery to beat up Phil Kessel.

That's why vigilantism is a bad thing. You're not going to leave those kinds of decisions, that can have real consequences, up to the punching bags of the league.

It was Mark Bell on Alfredsson

 

[Madferret]

I feel that vigilante justice is sometimes needed for (a minority) of certain mindsets (I guess who Burke calls "rats").

Like it or not the league remembers what Bertuzzi did to Steve Moore. Because the people who run the league are pretty reasonable, they know that's precisely what can happen if you let the meatheads decide what is and isn't acceptable conduct and what the appropriate consequence is for it. This isn't a minor issue. If the League fosters an environment where that sort of thing is not only allowable but encouraged they could really be liable for another similar incident.

Not everyone is going to see the same plays the same way. I'm sure there were some guys on Ottawa's bench who took exception with Chad Kilger's hit on Alfredsson. Should they have been allowed to go charging after Kilger? If not, how in the world do you ensure that vigilante justice is only applied correctly and how would you ever get people to agree to a standard?t There's no way to have a consistent rule in place that allows Colton Orr to beat up Sean Avery but doesn't also allow Sean Avery to beat up Phil Kessel.

That's why vigilantism is a bad thing. You're not going to leave those kinds of decisions, that can have real consequences, up to the punching bags of the league.

Kilger? Wasn't it Mark Bell?

 

[Sudafederov]

Colton Orr sat out all that time and he still has as many goals as Matt Stajan this year.

 

[Britishbulldog]

That's because Downie is a NHL calibre hockey player. Orr isn't. If Burke is upset that the dividing line between guys who can play in the NHL and those that can't isn't one of class and character but rather one of the fundamental ability to play the sport then he may be in the wrong line of work.

;D

That actually made me chuckle out loud.

 

[Sucker Punch]

I feel that vigilante justice is sometimes needed for (a minority) of certain mindsets (I guess who Burke calls "rats").

Like it or not the league remembers what Bertuzzi did to Steve Moore. Because the people who run the league are pretty reasonable, they know that's precisely what can happen if you let the meatheads decide what is and isn't acceptable conduct and what the appropriate consequence is for it. This isn't a minor issue. If the League fosters an environment where that sort of thing is not only allowable but encouraged they could really be liable for another similar incident.

Not everyone is going to see the same plays the same way. I'm sure there were some guys on Ottawa's bench who took exception with Chad Kilger's hit on Alfredsson. Should they have been allowed to go charging after Kilger? If not, how in the world do you ensure that vigilante justice is only applied correctly and how would you ever get people to agree to a standard?t There's no way to have a consistent rule in place that allows Colton Orr to beat up Sean Avery but doesn't also allow Sean Avery to beat up Phil Kessel.

That's why vigilantism is a bad thing. You're not going to leave those kinds of decisions, that can have real consequences, up to the punching bags of the league.

Kilger? Wasn't it Mark Bell?

Kilger's the dude that sticked Schubert in the junk.

 

[Kin]

You said that a fighter couldn't just grab a guy and stop.

I don't know how to respond to that because I'm pretty sure you forgot a couple words at the end of that sentence. It doesn't seem to actually mesh with anything I've said though.

I was merely referencing history to say that he could and it has, as Gretzky went around pretty much untouched until the instigator rule came in to affect.

I know what people say about Semenko/Gretzky but they last played together when I was 4 so I can't say for sure. You may be older than I am though. I have a hunch that, like a lot of these things, there's a fair amount of BS behind it.

Either way, I don't know if it's true or not but it's entirely besides the point. I never doubted the efficacy of a player clobbering another player. I mean, Steve Moore never took another run at Markus Naslund, so by those standards it was mission accomplished on Bertuzzi's part. I said it was insanely dangerous and stupid for the league not to have rules in effect against that sort of thing.

And yes, that is what Bertuzzi did, when the guy wouldn't fight him.  I don't know why Bertuzzi made the choice that he did.  If he cared that much about getting him, why not just ignore the rule and pummel the guy anyways like Cam Neely on Claude Lemieux.

What do you mean? That was textbook vigilante justice. Bertuzzi skated up to Moore, punched him in the head and slammed him to the ground. How is that not the sort of thing that people against the instigator rule are advocating as a means to clean up the game?

I never said it was right.  I am not condoning fighting.  I am not saying there should be fighting.  If a person is going to criticize Burke, then criticize him for what he is actually saying.

The criticism, I think, is more about the fact that Burke seemingly thinks that guys like Orr are the proper avenue for curbing on-ice issues. I think that makes the criticism pretty fair. 

Again as I said, just because he can fundamentally play hockey does not give him the right to recklessly endanger others on the ice.  That's like saying it's okay if rich people kill others because they have the money to afford expensive lawyers to get them off.  And like you said before, Bertuzzi broke a guys neck, and he was a pretty skilled hockey player, but he should have been out of the game after that incident.

Well, for starters that's just about the worst analogy in the history of analogies. But second, feel free to show me where I've said that anyone is allowed to do anything of the sort. I've argued time and again for harsher suspensions to anyone , regardless of skill level. If Burke was using this to say "The realities of the game are such that Colton Orr isn't very useful anymore but we should use this as an opportunity to address our woefully inadequate disciplinary process" then I think he'd had a lot of supporters.

To me, this is a great case of Burke passing the buck. If he wants to get rid of guys like Carcillo and Downie it's not reasonable or responsible to do it through guys like Orr and Parros and vigilante justice but rather him, the other GM's and the BOG changing the way they look at and deal with those kinds of players.

 

[Kin]

Kilger? Wasn't it Mark Bell?

What's the difference?

 

[Bullfrog]

Kilger? Wasn't it Mark Bell?

What's the difference?

Different mamas.

But to your point, nothing.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't know how to respond to that because I'm pretty sure you forgot a couple words at the end of that sentence. It doesn't seem to actually mesh with anything I've said though.

My mistake, I thought you meant that Orr pummelling a person wasn't a deterrent, and not that the instigator was not much of a deterrent.

I know what people say about Semenko/Gretzky but they last played together when I was 4 so I can't say for sure. You may be older than I am though. I have a hunch that, like a lot of these things, there's a fair amount of BS behind it.

Either way, I don't know if it's true or not but it's entirely besides the point. I never doubted the efficacy of a player clobbering another player. I mean, Steve Moore never took another run at Markus Naslund, so by those standards it was mission accomplished on Bertuzzi's part. I said it was insanely dangerous and stupid for the league not to have rules in effect against that sort of thing.

Agreed on the Bertuzzi part, not so much on the BS part. 

What do you mean? That was textbook vigilante justice. Bertuzzi skated up to Moore, punched him in the head and slammed him to the ground. How is that not the sort of thing that people against the instigator rule are advocating as a means to clean up the game?

I suppose.  I guess in my mind, I'm thinking that a guy will just grab a guy head on and pummel him.  Not attack him from behind.  Either way, I don't want the instigator rule taken out.  And neither does Burke. 

The criticism, I think, is more about the fact that Burke seemingly thinks that guys like Orr are the proper avenue for curbing on-ice issues. I think that makes the criticism pretty fair. 

And that's where I disagree.  In the press conference they ask about whether or not fighting lead to the issues we saw in the summer, and Burke says that is something that needs to be investigated and if it is a cause, then it needs to be addressed.  He is then asked point blank what the answer to the problem is, and he says that he doesn't know what the answer is.

Well, for starters that's just about the worst analogy in the history of analogies. But second, feel free to show me where I've said that anyone is allowed to do anything of the sort. I've argued time and again for harsher suspensions to anyone , regardless of skill level. If Burke was using this to say "The realities of the game are such that Colton Orr isn't very useful anymore but we should use this as an opportunity to address our woefully inadequate disciplinary process" then I think he'd had a lot of supporters.

To me, this is a great case of Burke passing the buck. If he wants to get rid of guys like Carcillo and Downie it's not reasonable or responsible to do it through guys like Orr and Parros and vigilante justice but rather him, the other GM's and the BOG changing the way they look at and deal with those kinds of players.

Again, I guess I misunderstood you.  I thought that you were arguing that Downie deserved to be in the league because he can actually play hockey, thus more privileged than Orr.  My argument is that even if he is privileged enough to be a good hockey player, he has to play within the rules.  If he continues to endanger people on the ice, he should be turfed.  My analogy was one of privilege offering people free passes when there shouldn't be. 

And Burke does say that they will be talking about it in the GM meetings that are coming down.  As I said above, he says he doesn't know what the answer is, but that this shouldn't all be on Brendan Shanahan. 

I think Burke has been somewhat consistent with the players he has put on the ice.  Armstrong is a pest, but he is not reckless.  He got rid of Hollweg pretty quickly as well after he ran a couple of people from behind.  He was the GM that did oversee the Bertuzzi incident though, and I don't recall what his reaction to that was.  Maybe he learned from that particular incident and it has caused him to feel the way that he does now. 

 

[rdowdall]

Kilger? Wasn't it Mark Bell?

What's the difference?

One wore 18, the other wore 28.

 

[Madferret]

Is Chad Kilger still in hiding?

 

[maplesyrup]

Is Chad Kilger still in hiding?

Nope... Still a firefighter in Cornwall I believe.

 

[Madferret]

Is Chad Kilger still in hiding?

Nope... Still a firefighter in Cornwall I believe.

Sans genitals.