Chris Chelios..

I never remember a negative word about Langway. He wanted to move back to the US for personal reasons. He wasn't the Langway in Mtl that he became in washington, but he got no fan or media abuse. I still maintain that Chelly got little on ice criticism as well.

I seem to recall Langway also disliked the taxation in Montreal.

But again these were guys who played with the team when they were winning so the criticism might have been limited to the fringe lunatics who criticise the sun when it rises. Unfortunately a lot of whom call themselves "fans" of the Habs.
 

Lost Kangaroo

Registered User
Jun 4, 2002
456
0
Brooklyn
Visit site
I disagree, not to knock him, he is a sensational player but those guys seem to just be on a higher level than him. Maybe I havent seen him play all that much but those guys just seem to be I guess leaders, and I dont equate Chelios to a leader. He will definitly get in, there is no question, but I think it all depends on who is a canidate, because if its any of those guys I dont see him getting in first round. Just my opinion.

First ballot for sure, and as far as him not being a leader, I got to disagree there. He was captain of the Hawks the last time they were good, and Captain of team USA a few times. So some of the hockey powers that be seem to think he's a leader as well. Was it him or Leetch that captained the '96 world cup team? I cant remember. Either way, on an all-time Team USA team, he would be a top four D-man. probably on the top pairing.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,819
13,316
First ballot for sure, and as far as him not being a leader, I got to disagree there. He was captain of the Hawks the last time they were good, and Captain of team USA a few times. So some of the hockey powers that be seem to think he's a leader as well. Was it him or Leetch that captained the '96 world cup team? I cant remember. Either way, on an all-time Team USA team, he would be a top four D-man. probably on the top pairing.

On an all time Team USA he'd be the #1 D and IMO the #1 player overall.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
Chelios is arguably the greatest US born player ever. One of the most complete players ever. Has longevity in spades. Peaked as a great player on cup winners who was the best at his position. There isn't a single reason to not put him in first ballot.
 

mcphee

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
19,101
8
Visit site
I seem to recall Langway also disliked the taxation in Montreal.

But again these were guys who played with the team when they were winning so the criticism might have been limited to the fringe lunatics who criticise the sun when it rises. Unfortunately a lot of whom call themselves "fans" of the Habs.
You're right, it was the tax situation. Montreal has eaten some guys up, and unfairly gone after some players, no matter the last name, but I don't think these 2 guys are examples. Chelly didn't ned any help getting in trouble if half the stories are true.

It's kind of intersting media wise, I don't believe they sit on stories the way they used to. I don't know that athletes behave worse than previous generations, but maybe it just doesn't get swept under the rug the way it used to.
 
It's kind of intersting media wise, I don't believe they sit on stories the way they used to. I don't know that athletes behave worse than previous generations, but maybe it just doesn't get swept under the rug the way it used to.

I totally agree with you, and not just in Montreal though it does seem to have more carnivores in the media than anywhere outside of New York I guess.

I think you're right though, in the past I suspect a lot of off-ice and dressing room stuff was kept behind closed doors. And not just because the team wanted it that way, I think a lot of the writers considered it to be the right thing to do. I think with the Internet and 24 hour sports radio and TV, media guys are so voracious for a story, any story, that their better judgement sometimes takes a back seat to a scoop or in some cases baseless speculation.

This summer's journalistic feeding frenzy over the Chris Pronger situation is the perfect example of this. You can't put the genie back in the bottle I guess, but I am less and less surprised when coaches decide to limit media access to their players and coaches. And I am less and less inclined to find any fault with that decision.
 

mcphee

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
19,101
8
Visit site
I totally agree with you, and not just in Montreal though it does seem to have more carnivores in the media than anywhere outside of New York I guess.

I think you're right though, in the past I suspect a lot of off-ice and dressing room stuff was kept behind closed doors. And not just because the team wanted it that way, I think a lot of the writers considered it to be the right thing to do. I think with the Internet and 24 hour sports radio and TV, media guys are so voracious for a story, any story, that their better judgement sometimes takes a back seat to a scoop or in some cases baseless speculation.

This summer's journalistic feeding frenzy over the Chris Pronger situation is the perfect example of this. You can't put the genie back in the bottle I guess, but I am less and less surprised when coaches decide to limit media access to their players and coaches. And I am less and less inclined to find any fault with that decision.
My 1st job was at Jarry Park as a stadium vendor in 69&70. We saw some stuff that opened up our 15 year old eyes. It was a small park and there weren't a lot of secrets when you'd arrive at 4.00 for a night game and have as much time as the players to kill. Same situation today, kids would be selling dirt to the tabloids.
 

LePoche69

Registered User
Jul 15, 2004
3,424
9
Montreal
You're right, it was the tax situation. Montreal has eaten some guys up, and unfairly gone after some players, no matter the last name, but I don't think these 2 guys are examples. Chelly didn't ned any help getting in trouble if half the stories are true.

It's kind of intersting media wise, I don't believe they sit on stories the way they used to. I don't know that athletes behave worse than previous generations, but maybe it just doesn't get swept under the rug the way it used to.

I dunno what value it has, but according to a friend of mine in the police department during Chelios' days, the main difference now about the reporters telling stories is the GM power. He says to me that Savard used to have an incredible power in the overall Montreal Business community (financial, connections, friends, etc.), therefore influencing every stories a paper could have published.

The police does is job, but if there is no reporters asking any question about who got cut that night (for criminal infos), they won't tell everybody (they can't take on them to reveal stories about somebody if it can influence people judgment). So it appears Savard often came to an agreement with reporters and their bosses, and with the police about not revealing a given story.

Anyway... for what it's worth.
 

mcphee

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
19,101
8
Visit site
Savard, and Pollock and Selke before him. The CH wielded more power in the community then.
A Red Fisher or a Jacques Beauchamp had a different relationship with the teams. Maybe they were too cozy with the org's, but they would draw a line between hockey and personal, and protect players they had often become friends with.
 
Savard, and Pollock and Selke before him. The CH wielded more power in the community then.
A Red Fisher or a Jacques Beauchamp had a different relationship with the teams. Maybe they were too cozy with the org's, but they would draw a line between hockey and personal, and protect players they had often become friends with.

I would guess that that's true of most of the beat writers for any team. If you have to face the players in the room for the rest of the season, and in some cases rely on them for quotes and information you can't blast the guy on the front page.

Which is probably why a lot of the crass, sensationalist garbage comes from "journalists" who don't have connections to the team or players themselves but always source to this "I know a guy inside and he says..." as if this makes everything true. And they will publish this pseudo-information regardless of consequences to the player, his family and the team. They are glory-hounds who are self-involved and are only concerned with the promotion of themselves.

As a sports fan I want to read stories about how the players are gelling as an on-ice unit, how the coaches plan to fix the power play, how the defence is going to limit opposition chances. These are stories that inform me about the team I root for. Printing ridiculous stories about what players do in bars or whispered rumors that two teammates may not like each other does not inform me at all.

Unless I am wrong a writers' first obligation is to his readers, not to himself. Which means either many journalists have forgotten this and will pen speculation stories to glamorize themselves as intrepid reporters digging out the truth; or that readers have become so shallow that this is the crap they want to read about. Neither option is particularly appealing and both are a pretty depressing statement abou the state of the media. ANd this is only sports media, it's worse with the "real" news.

Sigh.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->