Waived: Colton Orr

[Tigger]

Burke also admitted Colton's skating was an issue for the team, fwiw.

 

[bustaheims]

I both agree and disagree with Burke on this stuff. Unlike him, I don't have any negative feelings toward to elimination of enforcers. Their role has pretty much been boiled down to staged fights early in the game, and that's something that's completely unnecessary. However, I do share some of his concerns about the "rats" taking over the game. While there have always been agitator type players in the league, its feels like players like Avery, Carcillo, Downie, etc are much less respectful and much more malicious than their predecessors, and that's a concern. I don't see enforcers being a deterrent there or anything like that, but, I do agree that something may need to be done to minimize the negative impact of these types of players.

 

[Tigger]

Leafs GM Brian Burke said. ?We?re stuck with the instigator rule [46.11]. We take the instigator rule out and we?re back to three-hour games. Nobody wants that. I don?t think it?s a realistic option toward addressing it. There?s no question that if players could self-police, there might be fewer of these incidents but I?m not sure that?s a sensible way to get there.?

 

[ZBBM]

Well, at least Burke realizes getting rid of the instigator is not the answer, though admitting it just underlines the illogic of the statement I quote above.

I think Sig/Insig has it just about right.  Longer bans for repeat offenders -- and don't allow teams to fill the suspended player's roster spot so long as the suspension lasts.  That would get GMs' attention pronto and pretty soon they'd be weeding out the Downies and Carcillos and Averys themselves.  They couldn't afford not to.

 

[Corn Flake]

I both agree and disagree with Burke on this stuff. Unlike him, I don't have any negative feelings toward to elimination of enforcers. Their role has pretty much been boiled down to staged fights early in the game, and that's something that's completely unnecessary. However, I do share some of his concerns about the "rats" taking over the game. While there have always been agitator type players in the league, its feels like players like Avery, Carcillo, Downie, etc are much less respectful and much more malicious than their predecessors, and that's a concern. I don't see enforcers being a deterrent there or anything like that, but, I do agree that something may need to be done to minimize the negative impact of these types of players.

A great example of a rat getting away with crap was the other night when Downie's sole purpose all night long was to go out and try to goad Phaneuf into a fight.  He was all over the place throwing late checks including the one where Connolly got called for the elbow just semi-defending himself.  I was waiting all night for Downie to launch himself forearms first into Phaneufs' head while along the boards.  Never happened, thankfully.

I think the game is at a speed and intensity level where the talent-less enforcer is extinct, even if there was no instigator.  Somehow modifying the rule to deal with "rat issue" could be possible and still prevent some crazy fighting outbreak.  With a relaxed instigator rule you could have a Mike Brown type guy go take care of a Downie and be done with it.  Don't need an ogre, just a guy who can teach a tool a lesson.

 

[Tigger]

Well, at least Burke realizes getting rid of the instigator is not the answer, though admitting it just underlines the illogic of the statement I quote above.

I think Sig/Insig has it just about right.  Longer bans for repeat offenders -- and don't allow teams to fill the suspended player's roster spot so long as the suspension lasts.  That would get GMs' attention pronto and pretty soon they'd be weeding out the Downies and Carcillos and Averys themselves.  They couldn't afford not to.

I give Burke's notion of hitting disappearing some credence too. I mean yeah, get rid of those punks but don't take hitting out while you're at it.

I'm not sure how the players police themselves better under those rules, it's a toughie.

 

[McPwnage]

burke needs to stop crying about the rules and just adapt to them, I really prefer the new style of the game over the old.  Fighting is a luxury and honestly not what everyone goes to see.  The importance of fights are overated and your enforcer becomes your pest in the current metagame ie: colby armstrong, scott hartnell, steve downie, or matt cooke.  Standing up for players still has a place in hockey but you don't have to have a giant penis contest every time something happens or you end up like todd bertuzzi vs steve moore. 

 

[bustaheims]

I think Sig/Insig has it just about right.  Longer bans for repeat offenders -- and don't allow teams to fill the suspended player's roster spot so long as the suspension lasts.  That would get GMs' attention pronto and pretty soon they'd be weeding out the Downies and Carcillos and Averys themselves.  They couldn't afford not to.

There's a few tweeks that I'd make - firstly, the maximum fine of $2500 is a joke. It's not even a slap on the wrist. For on ice incidents, players should be able to be fined up to 10% of their salary. That would help encourage players to keep their elbow tucked and their skates on the ice when they're delivering hits. Secondly, I'd expand the repeat offender range from 18 months to 5 years. Really make getting a suspension or two a black mark on a player's record. That way, if they can't play the game without being reckless or malicious, they'll have to find somewhere else to play.

 

[lamajama]

Burke always said that "those penalties" (the one where a teammate stands up for a cheap shot - like Orr retaliating for a Downie) were the easiest to kill off.

So....either he's aware of his team's PK abilities or he doesn't think like he used to.

That being said the 4 minute "goon" era is over but in my opinion there is still a place for retaliation and an instigator for someone who is running around. In other words no more staged fights.

 

[Tigger]

Burke always said that "those penalties" (the one where a teammate stands up for a cheap shot - like Orr retaliating for a Downie) were the easiest to kill off.

So....either he's aware of his team's PK abilities or he doesn't think like he used to.

Or, y'know, he was being rhetorical about how much appreciation the team has for a stand up player.

 

[Madferret]

Does Burke not know how to tie a tie or does he just like the disheveled look?

 

[maplesyrup]

Does Burke not know how to tie a tie or does he just like the disheveled look?

It's just one of his things... It's something I could see George Costanza doing to impress whomever... Makes it look like you've been workin'

 

[maplesyrup]

Question... How does it work with players who still have term? Does Orr have to be waived again next year or does it matter at all?

Unless he retires, he'll have to be waived at the end of camp next season if they decide not to keep him up with the big club. His $1M cap hit would still count against the cap in the summer (again, if he doesn't retire).

I'm late... but thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Madferret]

Does Burke not know how to tie a tie or does he just like the disheveled look?

It's just one of his things... It's something I could see George Costanza doing to impress whomever... Makes it look like you've been workin'

He's a jackass.
Where is the big press conference about Dupuis?

 

[maplesyrup]

Does Burke not know how to tie a tie or does he just like the disheveled look?

It's just one of his things... It's something I could see George Costanza doing to impress whomever... Makes it look like you've been workin'

He's a jackass.
Where is the big press conference about Dupuis?

The conference (as it turns out) wasn't just about Orr... It just happens that a lot of folks asked about him. 

 

[princedpw]

Burke's "logic" is pretty darn creaky here.

1.  He had to send Orr down because there are no heavyweights for him to "dance" with.  (Incidentally, that euphemism can be retired, thank you.  "Brain damage partner" is more like it.)

2.  The "rats" start something they "won't back up."

So, what connection is there between 1 and 2?  None.  If all Orr does is fight heavyweights, then the Carcillos of the league can keep on doing whatever they want because they won't be fighting the Orrs -- they'll just duck any fight at all, or else at most get into it with someone closer to their own size.

Staged fights between heavyweights have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing or policing the marginal play of "rats," even if you think that heavyweight fights serve some kind of symbolic role as a form of retribution.

I can't agree with you more, which is why I've always thought the logic behind having an enforcer on your team makes no sense.  It's a shame the leafs management took so much longer to figure it out than, say, the wings management.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[L K]

I think one thing to be careful about is what fights are actually necessary.  To me, you see guys jump in and start a fight after a teammate gets hit with a big clean hit far too often.  I don't think we need to go back to the world of every other play being a fight because, hey, that's why we pay Jay Rosehill.  Dirty stuff certainly happens.

I couldn't care less about the antics of a guy like Downie, but in the grand scheme of things, what exactly did Downie do against Toronto that devastated the game.  He was a pest and tried to draw a bunch of penalties.  It was working for a bit and it ended up burning them significantly later in the game.  It wasn't like he was running around slashing everyone in the ankles, or delivering a blatant head shots.  I don't like him.  I don't like what he does, but I really have a hard time seeing how giving Colton Orr a free pass to pound his head in is a solution.

 

[Britishbulldog]

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.

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

"46.11 Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.

When a player receives his third instigator penalty in one Regular season, he is automatically given a game misconduct following that third violation."

"46.17  Fines and Suspensions ? Aggressor - A player who is deemed to be the aggressor for the third time in one Regular season shall be suspended for the next two regular season games of his team.
For the fourth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next four games of his team. For the fifth aggressor penalty in the same Regular season, the player will be suspended for the next six games of his team."

So after the 3rd instigator the player gets a game misconduct and a 2 game suspension automatically.  4th and 5th gets him 10 more games suspended automatically.

 

[Kin]

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.