Well, of course that's what most normal people think. But if you don't have one dressed for game one, why would you dress him for an elimination game in the conference finals, which is where you started.
But we did have one under contract when the events that you referenced against the Bruins and Rangers happened. You can't say stuff like "did you like to see the bruins going after our forwards at the end of losing games as we stood around ? did you like the dorsett headbutt where all we did was throw up our hands like a bunch of freaking soccer players ?" as a justification for signing a goon when we already had Parros under contract. He just wasn't anywhere near good enough to be given a place in the team to influence those events.
That's actually a better anti-goon argument than it is a pro-goon one.
having an enforcer is not like having a souped up delorean, you can go back in time to prevent things that already happened.
and you didnt answer the question, did you like seeing iginla and lucic double team our players ? Do you like the idea that the habs are so tissue soft that players like lucic think that they can threaten the habs in the handshake line and no one says, or will say boo ?
I'm a big fan of if players like dorsett want to get handsy or headbutt players we have someone like prust to punch him in the face repeatedly. That guy is not mike weaver., its sure as hell isn't our top 6, the top two pairings on defense or pretty much anyone not named brandon prust. Sometimes prust is enough, sometimes he's not. in the times hes not, saying " good luck" as you send him to a beating is a bad way to run a team.
again, with a guy like parros you cant stop incident A but you have a pretty good chance that it doesnt repeat or escalate. and if you are advocating that our undersized forwards simply have to get used to being ragdolled by bigger players then we get precisely what we deserve.
