Uh no, you said no one wants to give him credit for it. Giving less credit is not giving no credit.
Lol.
You know, if you had read my argument with some sort of intellectual integrity this discussion would be over by now.
The point was that the hockey world has a stigma towards short players. To pretend that this stigma doesn't have any effect on a player, which is essentially what is being done by saying "he's just short," is not just giving less credit, it's giving him less credit than he deserves.
But you want to argue about semantics about whether people are giving him no versus little credit?
Also, you'll note that I didn't say "no one gives him any credit," but rather "no one wants to give him credit for how far he's come." That should be understood as "no one wants to give him credit commensurate to the level of his achievement vis-a-vis the impediments that were put in his way."
Hardly, he fits the criteria of the award. He is where he is because of years of perseverance. Perseverance is the main criteria of the award.
You can't talk about his situation as just 'being short,' without talking about what that means for a hockey player.
Lots of guys are 5'7. There's like...one player in the NHL currently who is shorter than DD. There's a reason for that. That reason is that being that short is almost a death sentence for your hockey career.
The only reason DD isn't being considered for the award is that he doesn't have the histrionics of other cases attached to his situation. Maybe if he recovered from alcoholism and did exactly what he's doing now it'd pull on people's heart strings more. But it wouldn't make the argument anymore valid than it is now.
I can't believe I just read this. Bill Masterton died from hockey related injuries. Past "winners" of the trophy awarded in his name have been players who have been stricken by cancer or some other affliction that seriously impaired their ability to havea career. Most players would gladly give up their award to have been spared the life experiences that led to their trophy.
Every hockey player has to show perseverence to get to the NHL and stay there, but there are some people whose lives have been run over by a truck. It's ridiculous to think Desharnais deserves one iota of consideration for this award for being a little smaller physically. In fact he's living a charmed life it would seem.
Noticed that Marty St. Louis never won this award while also being an undrafted small guy that is a much better player than DD. This has agenda all over it.
Noticed that Marty St. Louis never won this award while also being an undrafted small guy that is a much better player than DD. This has agenda all over it.
You know, if you had read my argument with some sort of intellectual integrity this discussion would be over by now.
The point was that the hockey world has a stigma towards short players. To pretend that this stigma doesn't have any effect on a player, which is essentially what is being done by saying "he's just short," is not just giving less credit, it's giving him less credit than he deserves.
But you want to argue about semantics about whether people are giving him no versus little credit?
Also, you'll note that I didn't say "no one gives him any credit," but rather "no one wants to give him credit for how far he's come." That should be understood as "no one wants to give him credit commensurate to the level of his achievement vis-a-vis the impediments that were put in his way."
You made a blanket, hyperbolic statement that no one gives DD credit for how far he's come. Which is ******** btw. I then countered that no one is saying he should get no credit, just not so much credit to get an award for it. I was just responding to what you wrote, not what I was supposed to read into it.
You made a blanket, hyperbolic statement that no one gives DD credit for how far he's come. Which is ******** btw. I then countered that no one is saying he should get no credit, just not so much credit to get an award for it. I was just responding to what you wrote, not what I was supposed to read into it.
So who's not being intellectually honest?
Seriously, I don't get why folks are screaming that we're not giving him credit if we don't support him being nominated for this award...
By all means, give him credit for making the NHL and playing well. I don't think he deserves to be nominated for an award for doing this. This doesn't mean that I hate Desharnais or respect what he's done.
DD is quickly becoming a guy who you can't say anything remotely negative about without posters freaking out. Folks need to be a lot less sensitive on this. He's a good hockey player who's got heart. I don't think he deserves an award for it. That doesn't mean I hate him. End of story.
And I think that the posters who've accused Rejaune of doing this for political reasons are dead on. No way he writes the article if the player's name is Mike Smith. I'm sorry but it's true and we all know it. Sad thing is that by overhyping the guy, an inevitable backlash will happen with those who start to feel that he's getting overrated.
He's a good player. Let's just be happy about that. We don't need to give him a freaking award for making the NHL.
Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-16-2012 at 12:59 PM.
Yes and actually quite a lot of people think this way, but it seems HF boards wannabe experts know better. Pacioretty is obviously the first one that comes to mind because of his concussion.
Though, by definition: "...given to the National Hockey League player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to hockey."
Scratch sportsmanship from the Pacioretty arguments as he himself inflicted a concussion to Kris Letang, and unless you are biased toward the Habs or are just stupid, you can't deny it was a vicious blindside hit. He's been improving on the 'complaining' part over the past weeks, but he needs to think before saying stuff to the media or on twitter that he'll regret afterwards.
If you look at it this way, Desharnais was undrafted, kept working hard even though everybody told him he'll never play in the NHL because he was too small, was among the best of the best in each of his junior teams, never complains about his wingers, never complains about not producing (because he always produces), he's not dirty, rarely goes to the penalty box, he always shows up and give his 110%, he stole the first line spot off Plekanec, he's a beast on PP, is 4/7 in shootouts (now that is remarkable lol).... and this only on his second season in the NHL.
I'm not saying that Pacioretty does not deserve it. In fact I'd give it to him in a symbolic way, just to put an end to the Chara-Pacioretty incident and not make the whole province of Quebec go into a riot (looks like we're good at it). But yes, he of course deserves it, scoring 30 goals after a hit like that is pretty good, but the guy was already on a very good pace before that hit, so he's not exactly challenging the odds here. Chances are he would have done it anyway...
Just pointing to the fact that it is possible for people to have a different (and valuable) opinion than the one the HF boards posters are pushing in your brain.
I mean seriously, what's not telling me any of you guys are fat virgins sitting in front of the computer all day long in underwear, in their parents' basement? What credibility do you got? How can you possibly make more sense than experienced journalists (I'm not saying they all are) who cover the Montreal Canadiens and the NHL for a living? How can you not understand the simple definition of this trophy?
Pac and DD are both excellent choices for the Masterton trophy, you should be happy about that instead of debating on this stupid thread. Thanks, I'm out.
I mean seriously, what's not telling me any of you guys are fat virgins sitting in front of the computer all day long in underwear, in their parents' basement? What credibility do you got? How can you possibly make more sense than experienced journalists (I'm not saying they all are) who cover the Montreal Canadiens and the NHL for a living? How can you not understand the simple definition of this trophy?
You could have made sense but you lost all credibility right there
Pac and DD are both excellent choices for the Masterton trophy, you should be happy about that instead of debating on this stupid thread. Thanks, I'm out.
So it not this thread, you know the one called "Rejean says Desharnais over Pacioretty for Masterton", which thread should this be debated on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenHabz
How can you possibly make more sense than experienced journalists (I'm not saying they all are) who cover the Montreal Canadiens and the NHL for a living?
Right, because journalists are always right. What exactly makes them any more qualified to opine on this than anyone else here? Because they cover the Habs? So what. What makes them more qualified than the team that nominates the player?
Though, by definition: "...given to the National Hockey League player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to hockey."
Thats essentially every single solid NHLer. They have all shown dedication and perseverance to hockey. Sportsmanship? Well you can basically say every NHLer at one point in time, not acting in this manner.
So DD basically showed what it takes for NHLers to make it to the NHL. Thats not what the award was intended to be.
Looking at the past winners, guys who came back strong after going through difficult times. I don't think it's the candidates who have to change, it's the description of the trophy that has to be developped. At this point, it's way too vague of a trophy.
That said, I completely disagree with Rejean and everyone who says that Desharnais should've been nominated before Pacioretty. Desharnais is like every other small NHL player who worked his butt off to be where he's at despite people telling them they're way too small to succeed. Giving that trophy to Desharnais, or any other player with a similar story, would be like reminding him again that he was supposed to be "too small to succeed".
And besides, if Desharnais never has another season like this one, no one will remember him in 10 years. But If Pacioretty never scores 30 again, he'll always be remembered as the guy who came back from a near career ending injury, to have the best season of his career.
Thats essentially every single solid NHLer. They have all shown dedication and perseverance to hockey. Sportsmanship? Well you can basically say every NHLer at one point in time, not acting in this manner.
So DD basically showed what it takes for NHLers to make it to the NHL. Thats not what the award was intended to be.
Yes but somebody informed him along the way that he's short so there's that
I'm sure Desharnais would've seen it as an insult for the Habs to nominate him over Patches. Essentially, Tremblay is saying Desharnais overcame being a midget as if it were some kind of handicap. Besides, Desharnais isn't the first small guy to play in the NHL. By Tremblay's logic all players of small stature (ie. St-Louis, Briere, and one day Gallagher) should win this award. It makes no sense.
At first, I was shocked, but then I realized it's a French journalist backing the best French player on the team, so I'm not surprised.
As opposed to anglo fans backing an anglo player, right?
As opposed to anglo fans constantly regugitating anything Tony Marinaro says but bashing "French" journalists at every occasion.
Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by airic000
I'm sure Desharnais would've seen it as an insult for the Habs to nominate him over Patches. Essentially, Tremblay is saying Desharnais overcame being a midget as if it were some kind of handicap. Besides, Desharnais isn't the first small guy to play in the NHL. By Tremblay's logic all players of small stature (ie. St-Louis, Briere, and one day Gallagher) should win this award. It makes no sense.
For an NHL player, being 5'6'' is kind of a handicap. How many players of that height were drafted in the last 10 years?
I never cease to be amazed by Tremblay; it takes a real talent to display one's ignorance of the subject matter and blatant bias in so condescending a manner.
I'm quite amazed at how he can run down an exceptional draft year, which has yielded no less than three significant NHL players -- Grabovski, Emelin, and Streit -- and paint that as a failure because Desharnais was not drafted, even though he was not drafted by any other club either and the Canadiens were the ones to actually give him his shot.
I also note that he can't resist taking a shot at Timmins and quoting a nebulous "insider" who says the Habs' drafting needs to be overhauled... let me remind you that by many objective measures, the Habs are one of the five best-drafting clubs of the last 10 years, if not outright the best.
I never cease to be amazed by Tremblay; it takes a real talent to display one's ignorance of the subject matter and blatant bias in so condescending a manner.
I'm quite amazed at how he can run down an exceptional draft year, which has yielded no less than three significant NHL players -- Grabovski, Emelin, and Streit -- and paint that as a failure because Desharnais was not drafted, even though he was not drafted by any other club either and the Canadiens were the ones to actually give him his shot.
I also note that he can't resist taking a shot at Timmins and quoting a nebulous "insider" who says the Habs' drafting needs to be overhauled... let me remind you that by many objective measures, the Habs are one of the five best-drafting clubs of the last 10 years, if not outright the best.
Totally agree on all pts. The guy is a complete a$$ clown. His problem with our drafting is that we're not taking enough Quebecois.
I'm also curious why 60-70 point center Koivu and 60-70 point center Plekanec were not suitable to be dubbed number one centers, but 60-70 point center Desharnais is.
