1) That's the only conclusion we could come up with pertaining to Larry Brooks' recent rant about Dan Carcillo's 10 game ban for abusing an official in Game 3 of the Eastern Conference Final game with Montreal. Brooks' writings on the subject itself appear conflicted. On one hand he writes that the "act was indefensible" then he proceeds to defend the act!Actually blaming the official, linesmen Dan Driscoll with being "Physically provocative" Huh? Brooksie, are you freaking kidding me? If this were a court of law we'd have a field day comparing the 'priors' of Carcillo to that of Driscoll. The linesmen who's job it is to keep the peace was being provocative to one of the leagues goons? Come on Larry!
2) Carcillo has always played with an edge and frequently goes over that edge. He had been able to keep those tendency's in check these playoffs. Actually playing well as a solid 4th line energy forward. Scoring a couple of important goals in the process. Perhaps giving himself a good opportunity for a decent contract (as he's a UFA at season's end). He may have blown that now. His suspension would last until Game 6 of The Finals (assuming the Rangers get there and need 7 games to win the East) He'll be fortunate to get a 2 way deal, or free agent camp try out deal if his suspension goes into next season. As for Brooks, we respect his writing skills. Especially when he's discussing NHL labour issues or other non-NY rangers subjects. However, this stance defending the indefensible clearly shows when it comes to his beloved Rangers he wears Red, White and Blue coloured glasses!
No comments:
Post a Comment