True. My bad. But there were winners like I said that weren't related to injuries. And there are surely nominations this year that isn't related to injuries either. How about Jagr?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E
Still viewed as a ''comeback'', similar to an injury.
I don't think Jagr can be used as an example in this discussion. Sure you can say "if he's the Flyers nominee, then either MP/DD can be the nominee since they deserve it way more than him". But that doesn't help you out much because Jagr has absolutely no chance of winning.
There are really 2 types of winners to this award and we have 2 past winners that examplify this.
We have the player that shows all the criterias at its best in Henri Richard who won it in the mid-70s. Desharnais best examplifies this on this team. Fortunately for him, he can still be nominated next year for this or the year after and son on. Ottawa nominated Alfredsson which wouldn't surprise me if he won.
We also have players that although they fit in the category, they've had to overcome a sickness or injury which makes them a top candidate. Saku won it for this and this is where Patches matches up. The thing about Patches, at this point, if the remaining of his career resembles this year until it declines because of age, then this year is his only chance to win it. I haven't heard but Pittsburgh will probably nominate Crosby for these reasons which again wouldn't surprise me if he won because, hey it's Crosby. Earned or not, some people would vote for him just because it's Crosby.
I just saw that Cooke is Pittsburger's nominee. Nevermind, carry on.
If I had a vote, Patches would get my vote this year, and Desharnais would still be eligible to win it in future years.
Well if you look PRIOR to 1985, it was necessarily designed to be given to the most injured guy that came back doing great the year after. So that's what glancing at the list does. It's that you could, if you want to, make it about all-time achievement award, like this is the reason why Daniel Alfredsson is actually nominated this year or like Adam Graves for his dedication to hockey for all sorts of reasons, Dave Taylor and others prior to 1985. So if the league want to do it, they could do it. History is there to proove that it was once for that too. Yet, somehow, seems easier for the league to not make it too difficult to judge, look at who was hurt, and who had the best career the year after. As far as I'm concern, it is way too simplistic to look at. Some injuries are graver than others. And some injuries were easier to go through than others. And then there's the whole wording beside the Masterton trophy which for me says that you didn't have to be hurt to have perseverance, sportsmanship and dedication. But then, I guess it becomes more subjective so I guess the league didn't want to go that far.
Now, about your easier question of the year, no Tremblay would not have made a paper about it if it was Smith. Case closed. Yet, Tremblay is not the issue. His comment is. So remove Tremblay from the equation and let's discuss why it's a good or bad thing to talk about DD in that regard. I can tell you that with a guy like Tremblay, we'd be ALL agreeing on a topic. Totally unanimous. Then, we'd read an article where Tremblay agrees with us....and I can tell you that we'd found a way to bash him. I know.....I did plenty of time. I am all for bringing more Q players, yet when Tremblay says it, the way he speaks about it, it makes me furious 'cause he just bring the subject in such an ignorant way, that it brings the message to a really bad level which it doesn't deserve to be. Yet, the essence is usually worth talking even if it's to disagree with.
Did you purposefuly ignore the Saint-Louis and Rafalski cases. Why would it be any different for DD?
The fact it has been almost 30 years since they've picked a player for his determination alone should tell us Tremblay is only using this as yet another way to do the two only things he knows, bash the Habs, promote "French Quebec".
Pac better examplifies the reasons why this award is given.
Did you purposefuly ignore the Saint-Louis and Rafalski cases. Why would it be any different for DD?
The fact it has been almost 30 years since they've picked a player for his determination alone should tell us Tremblay is only using this as yet another way to do the two only things he knows, bash the Habs, promote "French Quebec".
Pac better examplifies the reasons why this award is given.
Oops....Martin St.Louis is THIS YEAR'S Tampa Bay Masterton nominee.... And wasn't Rafalski last year's nominee for the Wings?
Yes, we all know Tremblay's agenda. We all do. Yet, how about making the difference between "some" of his argumentation WITHOUT the way he's bringing it, and without the agenda behind it. Tremblay wants more francos in the team. Way more. Now, others, even non-francos, have mentioned it. Doesn't make it more right. But it is a debate to have. Yet, what Tremblay "seems" to want are more francos and almost no matter how good they could be. Which is where even the pro-francos like I am disagree with. So I agree with the pro-francos stuff....but hate it to see how Tremblay brings it 'cause people who can't make the difference between the message and the messenger will come down on it without looking at the essence of it. And frankly, in this board, most people who actually seem to hate franco players aren't hating them. They hate the "bias", they hate to see the franco media gloat etc....So they actually hate the messenger way more than the message. Some of those guys had no idea who Leblanc was and yet when the Habs picked him, some used the "well they had to pick the franco..." and we heard a 1000 more things like that. Which is where I'm furious and try to explain that at one point, a franco can also be a good player.....
Last edited by Whitesnake: 03-18-2012 at 03:38 PM.
I don't think Jagr can be used as an example in this discussion. Sure you can say "if he's the Flyers nominee, then either MP/DD can be the nominee since they deserve it way more than him". But that doesn't help you out much because Jagr has absolutely no chance of winning.
Point is, some people "bashing" the possibility to see DD as a NOMINEE, are not doing based on the possibility of him WINNING, but just the possibility of him being NOMINATED. So Jagr is a good example based on the fact that you don't have to be an ex-crippled or illness survivor to be nominated. I guess to be WIN it, you do and I find it particularly simplistic to think that way. Again, not saying it should NEVER be about it, but a respectable league should have found a way to mix this, with what this trophy was made for at the beginninig of it, like I said, prior mostly to 1985.
'Cause again, if you happen to have never been hurt, you have no chance of winning. Just a pretty simplistic argument if you ask me. There are other ways to show your perserverance and dedication to the game. And St.Louis, like DD, are just 2 very good examples.
I am very disappointed that people are so divided over which of 2 players deserves to be nominated for a trophy representing dedication to hockey. What people should be discussing, is why we do not have 21.Then we would be able to acquire the only trophy that really matters, The Stanley Cup!
Point is, some people "bashing" the possibility to see DD as a NOMINEE, are not doing based on the possibility of him WINNING, but just the possibility of him being NOMINATED. So Jagr is a good example based on the fact that you don't have to be an ex-crippled or illness survivor to be nominated. I guess to be WIN it, you do and I find it particularly simplistic to think that way. Again, not saying it should NEVER be about it, but a respectable league should have found a way to mix this, with what this trophy was made for at the beginninig of it, like I said, prior mostly to 1985.
'Cause again, if you happen to have never been hurt, you have no chance of winning. Just a pretty simplistic argument if you ask me. There are other ways to show your perserverance and dedication to the game. And St.Louis, like DD, are just 2 very good examples.
The NHL didn't have a 'Comeback player of the year' award, so it just fit in perfectly.
People can nominate who they want, it's always going to be the headline grabber that gets the award.
Rejean wouldn't be offbase in saying that DD would be a deserving candidate, but it's simply not in the cards when we have a great comeback story on the roster.
The NHL didn't have a 'Comeback player of the year' award, so it just fit in perfectly.
People can nominate who they want, it's always going to be the headline grabber that gets the award.
Rejean wouldn't be offbase in saying that DD would be a deserving candidate, but it's simply not in the cards when we have a great comeback story on the roster.
Other than that, RT is a doucher.
this is exactly my thoughts as well. Especially that last part about RT. His 'view' on this takes away from an amazing season by DD because that poor kid gets smeared by the same poo flinging.
I don't know, I have a lot of respect for how careful Cooke has played this year while still being an effective grinder who can contribute offensively.
It might be about self-preservation but it's rare to see such a successful change in discipline.
Oops....Martin St.Louis is THIS YEAR'S Tampa Bay Masterton nominee.... And wasn't Rafalski last year's nominee for the Wings?
Yes, we all know Tremblay's agenda. We all do. Yet, how about making the difference between "some" of his argumentation WITHOUT the way he's bringing it, and without the agenda behind it. Tremblay wants more francos in the team. Way more. Now, others, even non-francos, have mentioned it. Doesn't make it more right. But it is a debate to have. Yet, what Tremblay "seems" to want are more francos and almost no matter how good they could be. Which is where even the pro-francos like I am disagree with. So I agree with the pro-francos stuff....but hate it to see how Tremblay brings it 'cause people who can't make the difference between the message and the messenger will come down on it without looking at the essence of it. And frankly, in this board, most people who actually seem to hate franco players aren't hating them. They hate the "bias", they hate to see the franco media gloat etc....So they actually hate the messenger way more than the message. Some of those guys had no idea who Leblanc was and yet when the Habs picked him, some used the "well they had to pick the franco..." and we heard a 1000 more things like that. Which is where I'm furious and try to explain that at one point, a franco can also be a good player.....
And the fact that they are both at the END of their respective careers should tell you a little something on how the league perceives cases like DD. If DD's ever to win, or let alone be nominated for the Masterton because of his path (without the injury factor), it will be when he'll have accomplished a little more than just a great sophomore season.
And wasn't Rafalski last year's nominee for the Wings?
So true.
