Pre-Season: Sabres @ Leafs - Sept. 22, 7:00pm - LeafsTV, TSN 1050

[Champ Kind]

May already be here, but this is how Scott defends fighting Kessel:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/john-scott-explains-why-attacked-poor-nearly-defenseless-202830725--nhl.html

According to Scott, speaking with the media on Monday (via Buffalo News), he was following The Code, that time-honored and completely nebulous set of standards that dictates who gets punched and when.

Scott believes that Corey Tropp, his Sabres teammate, wasn?t in a fair fight with Jamie Devane of the Maple Leafs in the third period of their Sunday exhibition game. Scott was on the ice when the scrap went down. He apparently didn?t notice Tropp ask for the fight (he did). All he saw was Devane, with a height advantage by at least five inches, pummel Tropp, including a punch that landed as Tropp was falling to the ice, hitting his head.

?The last punch and driving his head into the ice, I don?t think that was needed,? said Scott.

So he stayed on the ice after Tropp went off and Devane went to the penalty box, looking for some measure of retribution. "I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me,? said Scott.

Maple Leafs Coach Randy Carlyle didn?t have an appetite for further violence. Rather than sending someone out to be pummeled by Scott, he sent Kessel, the team?s best offensive player, out instead to ?defuse? the situation.

It?s the hockey version of ?you wouldn?t hit a guy with glasses, would ya?? The theory is that goons won?t go after star players. That?s how Carlyle read the Code. Scott had a different reading.

?I can understand his idea behind it. I obviously thought our guy got taken advantage of the shift before. I was trying to stick up for him, and send a message to Toronto,? said Scott.

You know, when he puts it like that, the whole stupid thing actually makes a bit of sense.  I'm not sure how he did it, but John Scott actually sounds very reasonable in that quote.

 

[Stronger Than All]

I'm guessing the first meeting of the back to back is in Buffalo.  Imagine the crowd that night.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

May already be here, but this is how Scott defends fighting Kessel:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/john-scott-explains-why-attacked-poor-nearly-defenseless-202830725--nhl.html

According to Scott, speaking with the media on Monday (via Buffalo News), he was following The Code, that time-honored and completely nebulous set of standards that dictates who gets punched and when.

Scott believes that Corey Tropp, his Sabres teammate, wasn?t in a fair fight with Jamie Devane of the Maple Leafs in the third period of their Sunday exhibition game. Scott was on the ice when the scrap went down. He apparently didn?t notice Tropp ask for the fight (he did). All he saw was Devane, with a height advantage by at least five inches, pummel Tropp, including a punch that landed as Tropp was falling to the ice, hitting his head.

?The last punch and driving his head into the ice, I don?t think that was needed,? said Scott.

So he stayed on the ice after Tropp went off and Devane went to the penalty box, looking for some measure of retribution. "I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me,? said Scott.

Maple Leafs Coach Randy Carlyle didn?t have an appetite for further violence. Rather than sending someone out to be pummeled by Scott, he sent Kessel, the team?s best offensive player, out instead to ?defuse? the situation.

It?s the hockey version of ?you wouldn?t hit a guy with glasses, would ya?? The theory is that goons won?t go after star players. That?s how Carlyle read the Code. Scott had a different reading.

?I can understand his idea behind it. I obviously thought our guy got taken advantage of the shift before. I was trying to stick up for him, and send a message to Toronto,? said Scott.

You know, when he puts it like that, the whole stupid thing actually makes a bit of sense.  I'm not sure how he did it, but John Scott actually sounds very reasonable in that quote.

"I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me?

How is that being reasonable?

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

May already be here, but this is how Scott defends fighting Kessel:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/john-scott-explains-why-attacked-poor-nearly-defenseless-202830725--nhl.html

According to Scott, speaking with the media on Monday (via Buffalo News), he was following The Code, that time-honored and completely nebulous set of standards that dictates who gets punched and when.

Scott believes that Corey Tropp, his Sabres teammate, wasn?t in a fair fight with Jamie Devane of the Maple Leafs in the third period of their Sunday exhibition game. Scott was on the ice when the scrap went down. He apparently didn?t notice Tropp ask for the fight (he did). All he saw was Devane, with a height advantage by at least five inches, pummel Tropp, including a punch that landed as Tropp was falling to the ice, hitting his head.

?The last punch and driving his head into the ice, I don?t think that was needed,? said Scott.

So he stayed on the ice after Tropp went off and Devane went to the penalty box, looking for some measure of retribution. "I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me,? said Scott.

Maple Leafs Coach Randy Carlyle didn?t have an appetite for further violence. Rather than sending someone out to be pummeled by Scott, he sent Kessel, the team?s best offensive player, out instead to ?defuse? the situation.

It?s the hockey version of ?you wouldn?t hit a guy with glasses, would ya?? The theory is that goons won?t go after star players. That?s how Carlyle read the Code. Scott had a different reading.

?I can understand his idea behind it. I obviously thought our guy got taken advantage of the shift before. I was trying to stick up for him, and send a message to Toronto,? said Scott.

You know, when he puts it like that, the whole stupid thing actually makes a bit of sense.  I'm not sure how he did it, but John Scott actually sounds very reasonable in that quote.

"I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me?

How is that being reasonable?

I agree with you ...he sounds like just as big a tool

 

[Champ Kind]

May already be here, but this is how Scott defends fighting Kessel:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/john-scott-explains-why-attacked-poor-nearly-defenseless-202830725--nhl.html

According to Scott, speaking with the media on Monday (via Buffalo News), he was following The Code, that time-honored and completely nebulous set of standards that dictates who gets punched and when.

Scott believes that Corey Tropp, his Sabres teammate, wasn?t in a fair fight with Jamie Devane of the Maple Leafs in the third period of their Sunday exhibition game. Scott was on the ice when the scrap went down. He apparently didn?t notice Tropp ask for the fight (he did). All he saw was Devane, with a height advantage by at least five inches, pummel Tropp, including a punch that landed as Tropp was falling to the ice, hitting his head.

?The last punch and driving his head into the ice, I don?t think that was needed,? said Scott.

So he stayed on the ice after Tropp went off and Devane went to the penalty box, looking for some measure of retribution. "I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me,? said Scott.

Maple Leafs Coach Randy Carlyle didn?t have an appetite for further violence. Rather than sending someone out to be pummeled by Scott, he sent Kessel, the team?s best offensive player, out instead to ?defuse? the situation.

It?s the hockey version of ?you wouldn?t hit a guy with glasses, would ya?? The theory is that goons won?t go after star players. That?s how Carlyle read the Code. Scott had a different reading.

?I can understand his idea behind it. I obviously thought our guy got taken advantage of the shift before. I was trying to stick up for him, and send a message to Toronto,? said Scott.

You know, when he puts it like that, the whole stupid thing actually makes a bit of sense.  I'm not sure how he did it, but John Scott actually sounds very reasonable in that quote.

"I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me?

How is that being reasonable?

Fair enough.  Not reasonable, but logical.  I mean, I guess what I'm saying is that I can see the way he approached the whole thing.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

May already be here, but this is how Scott defends fighting Kessel:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/john-scott-explains-why-attacked-poor-nearly-defenseless-202830725--nhl.html

According to Scott, speaking with the media on Monday (via Buffalo News), he was following The Code, that time-honored and completely nebulous set of standards that dictates who gets punched and when.

Scott believes that Corey Tropp, his Sabres teammate, wasn?t in a fair fight with Jamie Devane of the Maple Leafs in the third period of their Sunday exhibition game. Scott was on the ice when the scrap went down. He apparently didn?t notice Tropp ask for the fight (he did). All he saw was Devane, with a height advantage by at least five inches, pummel Tropp, including a punch that landed as Tropp was falling to the ice, hitting his head.

?The last punch and driving his head into the ice, I don?t think that was needed,? said Scott.

So he stayed on the ice after Tropp went off and Devane went to the penalty box, looking for some measure of retribution. "I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me,? said Scott.

Maple Leafs Coach Randy Carlyle didn?t have an appetite for further violence. Rather than sending someone out to be pummeled by Scott, he sent Kessel, the team?s best offensive player, out instead to ?defuse? the situation.

It?s the hockey version of ?you wouldn?t hit a guy with glasses, would ya?? The theory is that goons won?t go after star players. That?s how Carlyle read the Code. Scott had a different reading.

?I can understand his idea behind it. I obviously thought our guy got taken advantage of the shift before. I was trying to stick up for him, and send a message to Toronto,? said Scott.

You know, when he puts it like that, the whole stupid thing actually makes a bit of sense.  I'm not sure how he did it, but John Scott actually sounds very reasonable in that quote.

I'm not sure he comes off so reasonable. I mean, out of the 5 players on the ice for the Leafs, could he not of gone after someone other than Kessel? Can he only skate to a face off and drop the gloves? He wouldn't of met anyone else on the ice? Why did his response have to be immediate? Did he figure that was his last shift of the game?

It sounds like he's a meathead with no real brains upstairs.

 

[bustaheims]

Fair enough.  Not reasonable, but logical.  I mean, I guess what I'm saying is that I can see the way he approached the whole thing.

Perhaps you should speak to someone about your sociopathic leanings, then.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Fair enough.  Not reasonable, but logical.  I mean, I guess what I'm saying is that I can see the way he approached the whole thing.

Perhaps you should speak to someone about your sociopathic leanings, then.

Yeah, logical would be actually finding out what happened between Tropp and Devane before deciding without all the facts that you're going after the first person you see.

 

[Champ Kind]

Hey hey hey!  Easy now! 

Just because I can understand or follow someone's logical flow doesn't mean I agree with them.  Based on what Scott said, he saw a smaller guy get hurt by a bigger guy.  He stayed on the ice and had predetermined that regardless who was lining up against him, he was going to start something.  The fact that Kessel lined up against him was irrelevant.  He had made up his mind before seeing who was on the other side.  He's a committed guy, I guess, and follows through once a decision is made.

I understand his explanation.  He also seems to have thought it through and, while I don't like what he did, there was a, shall we say, method behind his madness.  Unlike, say, what I see here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EXLoC7DwXg[/youtube]

 

[TML fan]

It's not even a logical flow. How can you get mad at a bigger guy picking on a smaller guy, and then do the exact same thing 30 seconds later but to an unwilling participant?

Following his logical flow, Jake Gardiner should have then run him over with the Zamboni.

The logical thing to do would have been to challenge Devane to a fight, but that's way too much thinking for him.

 

[mr grieves]

That doesn't seem to add up. You say that the best group of centres available is one that includes Bolland but not Bozak, indicating that you think that Bolland is a superior player, but dismiss out of hand the idea that Carlyle would like Bolland as much as you think he (irrationally) liked Bozak.

I guess I'm giving him more credit than you.

I think the best group of centres that the Leafs had available to them, strangely enough, is the one they had when the season ended. I think Bozak is a better player than Bolland, he's younger, bigger, better on the draw, has scored at a better clip for the course of his career, is better defensively and so on. The reason Bolland is on the team is because he's a cost effective version of what Grabo(or in your ideal world, Bozak) would have been under Carlyle, a 2nd/3rd line centre who can score. Neither Bozak or Grabo were going to be that so, realistically, Nonis had to choose one or the other. Where did you stand on that decision again?

My ideal world is one where the Leafs had a real 1C, signed Lecavalier or traded for Stastny. But, of the probable worlds we could be living in, my ideal would be the group of centers the team had on June 30th. An appropriately paid, gritty veteran 3C with the skillset to center a shutdown line. I don't think Bozak is or will be that.

Regardless, I think that a lot of these moves were made with the idea that the question of which of Grabo, Bozak or Bolland is best suited for the first line job is moot. I think this team is being built on the idea that Kadri will take that job soon.

Agreed. So, it's a missed opportunity that they didn't lock up the future 1C for a relatively long term at a relatively decent price. But that aside, they'll still need a 2C. And I suspect that might be Tyler Bozak, but I doubt that Kessel will be on any Kadri-centered first line. Carlyle says he likes his pairs, and the Kessel-Bozak duo is one he's been pretty committed to.
 

Well, we've gone over the idea that a "Randy Carlyle player" doesn't really seem to indicate anything as he's found room in the past to accommodate all sorts of players,

Yes. All sorts, including players with limited skill sets, an propensity to fight that somehow balances that out, and who take direction well when instructed to chip it off the boards or fire it off the glass. And those sorts to a degree that's unique among modern NHL coaches -- hence "Randy Carlyle player."

regardless I'm not inclined to read too much into those comments by Nonis as A) as I said, it's still ultimately on Nonis because he's making the decision to keep Carlyle around

I certainly don't disagree with this. If the summer moves don't turn out well, you can say 'that's what you get building a team for your coach' -- and that, I think, ultimately means it's still on Nonis. As long as everyone's agreed that the GM is ultimately responsible for assembling a roster, I don't think it really matters whether one thinks that Nonis is letting Carlyle pick out FAs & trade targets, that Nonis is picking out the FAs & trade targets he thinks his coach wants, or that Nonis wants the same sort of FAs & trade targets.

and B) Ultimately you want your coach and GM on the same page

Sure, that's a sound principle. But their responsibilities are surely different. Clarkson might make the team more competitive this season, so I can see why Carlyle would want him regardless of the contract. But the GM needs a longer view than who's available for the lineup this season; he's trying, I'd think, to maintain the competitiveness of his team for the future. So, things that get in the way of locking up assets, cost picks, will likely encumber your team in future years should be avoided. 

and C) it would be ridiculous to expect him to come out of a press conference saying that Carlyle didn't want a newly acquired player but he pulled rank.

Yes, Nik. That would be ridiculous.

Of course, he could just do what most other GMs do: tout the attributes of the player, where he fits into the team, and comment on the contract being one that's good for the longer-term fortunes of the team. Or he could, you know, not say those things but actually do them.

Burke's remembered by some as an arrogant loudmouth, but his management style was actually more modest. He certainly never behaved like he was indifferent to the later years of a contract because he got the player he wanted for the upcoming season.

 

[Champ Kind]

It's not even a logical flow. How can you get mad at a bigger guy picking on a smaller guy, and then do the exact same thing 30 seconds later but to an unwilling participant?

Following his logical flow, Jake Gardiner should have then run him over with the Zamboni.

The logical thing to do would have been to challenge Devane to a fight, but that's way too much thinking for him.

Meh.  Whatever.  According to Scott, he was going to do what he did regardless of who lined up with him.  I understand his actions more as a result.

 

[LittleHockeyFan]

Following his logical flow, Jake Gardiner should have then run him over with the Zamboni.

Now that I wanna see!

 

[pnjunction]

It's not even a logical flow. How can you get mad at a bigger guy picking on a smaller guy, and then do the exact same thing 30 seconds later but to an unwilling participant?

Following his logical flow, Jake Gardiner should have then run him over with the Zamboni.

The logical thing to do would have been to challenge Devane to a fight, but that's way too much thinking for him.

Meh.  Whatever.  According to Scott, he was going to do what he did regardless of who lined up with him.  I understand his actions more as a result.

If I explained that I was going to beat up the first person I saw when I went outside, that  might make my random attack on some guy outside my building 'understandable' in a way, but the initial decision to turn my brain off and follow that course of action was stupid.

 

[Champ Kind]

If I explained that I was going to beat up the first person I saw when I went outside, that  might make my random attack on some guy outside my building 'understandable' in a way, but the initial decision to turn my brain off and follow that course of action was stupid.

Now that I agree with.

 

[Kin]

I guess I'm giving him more credit than you.

No. You're twisting the available information to fit your own perceptions rather than making logical conclusions. Because lord knows if you can't turn any unrelated subject into a meditation on why the team was stupid to buyout Grabo it's a wasted discussion for you.

An appropriately paid, gritty veteran 3C with the skillset to center a shutdown line. I don't think Bozak is or will be that.

No? You should have said at some point this summer. What, then, makes you think that Bolland is in any way better suited for that role besides making a million dollars less?

Agreed. So, it's a missed opportunity that they didn't lock up the future 1C for a relatively long term at a relatively decent price. But that aside, they'll still need a 2C. And I suspect that might be Tyler Bozak, but I doubt that Kessel will be on any Kadri-centered first line. Carlyle says he likes his pairs, and the Kessel-Bozak duo is one he's been pretty committed to.

For the 48 games of his first season with the team, sure and, there's some wisdom to that being as Kessel is, as has been proven by points/60, a more productive offensive player with Bozak than without him. But that doesn't mean it's locked in stone or that as Kadri grows and develops as a player that attitude won't change. 
 

Yes. All sorts, including players with limited skill sets,

All coaches find room for players with limited skill sets. Nobody has built a team on the backs of 20 Bobby Orrs. Carlyle's cup winning team featured Teemu Selanne and George Parros. Chris Kunitz and Andy McDonald. Sean O'Donnell and Scott Niedermayer. Travis Moen and Sami Pahlsson. The idea that Carlyle's tenure as a NHL coach has given indication that there are any sorts of skillsets that he just doesn't have time for is a complete fiction.

Carlyle's decision making so far seems to be based on effectiveness, not style. Phil Kessel, judging by the way he was used, sure seems to be a "Carlyle type" player and it's not because of just how mean he is.

As long as everyone's agreed that the GM is ultimately responsible for assembling a roster, I don't think it really matters whether one thinks that Nonis is letting Carlyle pick out FAs & trade targets, that Nonis is picking out the FAs & trade targets he thinks his coach wants, or that Nonis wants the same sort of FAs & trade targets.

I think the basic fact that Randy Carlyle is employed as the head coach should, at the very least, put to rest the idea that Nonis is a passive contributor to the kind of team being shaped but it's beginning to dawn on me that some people are perfectly willing to ignore common sense to continue their single minded vendetta's against certain people because of how much they liked the Maple Leafs ineffective, overpaid 3rd line centre last year. 

But the GM needs a longer view than who's available for the lineup this season; he's trying, I'd think, to maintain the competitiveness of his team for the future. So, things that get in the way of locking up assets, cost picks, will likely encumber your team in future years should be avoided.

Right. And, as always, what those things are will continue to be a matter of some debate. They're never going to teach "Hockey Team Construction" in the Applied Sciences building. 

Of course, he could just do what most other GMs do: tout the attributes of the player, where he fits into the team, and comment on the contract being one that's good for the longer-term fortunes of the team.

Why? Why is it a bad thing for a GM to mention how a coach feels about a player that they just signed? How does that differ substantially from discussing how a player "fits into the team"? Why in the world would a fan of a team have an objection to a GM mentioning how a coach thinks about a signing as a negative unless that fan was so obsessed with finding fault with every decision a coach made no matter how effective it proved that the concept of him having input into the team's construction reflexively makes him like a signing less without any critical thought whatsoever?

And regardless if you think that most GM's don't talk about how a coach feels about a player at those early July Press Conferences, we are watching different leagues.

Burke's remembered by some as an arrogant loudmouth, but his management style was actually more modest.

Yeah. You haven't lost perspective at all.

 

[L K]

May already be here, but this is how Scott defends fighting Kessel:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/john-scott-explains-why-attacked-poor-nearly-defenseless-202830725--nhl.html

According to Scott, speaking with the media on Monday (via Buffalo News), he was following The Code, that time-honored and completely nebulous set of standards that dictates who gets punched and when.

Scott believes that Corey Tropp, his Sabres teammate, wasn?t in a fair fight with Jamie Devane of the Maple Leafs in the third period of their Sunday exhibition game. Scott was on the ice when the scrap went down. He apparently didn?t notice Tropp ask for the fight (he did). All he saw was Devane, with a height advantage by at least five inches, pummel Tropp, including a punch that landed as Tropp was falling to the ice, hitting his head.

?The last punch and driving his head into the ice, I don?t think that was needed,? said Scott.

So he stayed on the ice after Tropp went off and Devane went to the penalty box, looking for some measure of retribution. "I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me,? said Scott.

Maple Leafs Coach Randy Carlyle didn?t have an appetite for further violence. Rather than sending someone out to be pummeled by Scott, he sent Kessel, the team?s best offensive player, out instead to ?defuse? the situation.

It?s the hockey version of ?you wouldn?t hit a guy with glasses, would ya?? The theory is that goons won?t go after star players. That?s how Carlyle read the Code. Scott had a different reading.

?I can understand his idea behind it. I obviously thought our guy got taken advantage of the shift before. I was trying to stick up for him, and send a message to Toronto,? said Scott.

You know, when he puts it like that, the whole stupid thing actually makes a bit of sense.  I'm not sure how he did it, but John Scott actually sounds very reasonable in that quote.

Reasonable?

1- I didn't have all of the facts (Tropp challenged Devane)
2- Falling down and hitting the ice DOES NOT equal being driven into the ice
3- I'm going to jump whoever I want because I'm angry

How does that come off as rational?

 

[TimKerr]

May already be here, but this is how Scott defends fighting Kessel:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/john-scott-explains-why-attacked-poor-nearly-defenseless-202830725--nhl.html

According to Scott, speaking with the media on Monday (via Buffalo News), he was following The Code, that time-honored and completely nebulous set of standards that dictates who gets punched and when.

Scott believes that Corey Tropp, his Sabres teammate, wasn?t in a fair fight with Jamie Devane of the Maple Leafs in the third period of their Sunday exhibition game. Scott was on the ice when the scrap went down. He apparently didn?t notice Tropp ask for the fight (he did). All he saw was Devane, with a height advantage by at least five inches, pummel Tropp, including a punch that landed as Tropp was falling to the ice, hitting his head.

?The last punch and driving his head into the ice, I don?t think that was needed,? said Scott.

So he stayed on the ice after Tropp went off and Devane went to the penalty box, looking for some measure of retribution. "I would have went after who ever they put lined up next to me,? said Scott.

Maple Leafs Coach Randy Carlyle didn?t have an appetite for further violence. Rather than sending someone out to be pummeled by Scott, he sent Kessel, the team?s best offensive player, out instead to ?defuse? the situation.

It?s the hockey version of ?you wouldn?t hit a guy with glasses, would ya?? The theory is that goons won?t go after star players. That?s how Carlyle read the Code. Scott had a different reading.

?I can understand his idea behind it. I obviously thought our guy got taken advantage of the shift before. I was trying to stick up for him, and send a message to Toronto,? said Scott.

You know, when he puts it like that, the whole stupid thing actually makes a bit of sense.  I'm not sure how he did it, but John Scott actually sounds very reasonable in that quote.

Reasonable?

1- I didn't have all of the facts (Tropp challenged Devane)
2- Falling down and hitting the ice DOES NOT equal being driven into the ice
3- I'm going to jump whoever I want because I'm angry

How does that come off as rational?

This rational because of the 'code' of the NHL fighter. Bigger player beats up one on smaller teammates, then I am going to beat someone up on the other team.
He is making logical sense because he believes and follows the 'code'

It is the 'code' that is irrational and insane. And this incident once again shows it.

 

[Kin]

This rational because of the 'code' of the NHL fighter. Bigger player beats up one on smaller teammates, then I am going to beat someone up on the other team.
He is making logical sense because he believes and follows the 'code'

But that's never been the code. Never. The Code is here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TacPPXaNI9A[/youtube]

McSorley, the Kings fighter, takes a run at the Leafs star. Clark, the Leafs fighter, goes after McSorley. Clark didn't wait until the next time he was on the ice with Gretzky and punch him in the face. The idea that the "code" is "You hit our star, therefore I'm justified in doing whatever I want to whoever I want" has no basis in the history of the league.

 

[Frank E]

This rational because of the 'code' of the NHL fighter. Bigger player beats up one on smaller teammates, then I am going to beat someone up on the other team.
He is making logical sense because he believes and follows the 'code'

It is the 'code' that is irrational and insane. And this incident once again shows it.

Not quite as I understand the code to be...if Devane had challenged the smaller Tropp, then I can see this kind of reaction from Buffallo/Scott.

But that wasn't the case, as Tropp seems to have challenged Devane.