King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Actually King is explicitly saying Henrik Sedin should have dropped the gloves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 No I'm not. I'm saying that he should've given it right back to him, like any red-blooded male should/would when being so blatantly disrespected by somebody else. And to your earlier point, NO, San Jose wouldn't have exclusively gotten a PP, the ref almost definitely would've taken both. Joe Thornton would not have allowed Henrik Sedin to do that to him, so he would've retaliated. But, nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 No I'm not. I'm saying that he should've given it right back to him, like any red-blooded male should/would when being so blatantly disrespected by somebody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Re-writing history King? Your post that was quoted at the top of this page (#2336) clearly has you saying Henrik "should have" engaged Thornton in a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Re-writing history King? Your post that was quoted at the top of this page (#2336) clearly has you saying Henrik "should have" engaged Thornton in a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Re-writing history King? Your post that was quoted at the top of this page (#2336) clearly has you saying Henrik "should have" engaged Thornton in a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Semantics - not the issue. Just do something. Shove your hand in his face. All that would likely happen is a face-washing, bear-hugging affair, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 C'mon Rupert...........you know better than to wander around here without your mind reading helmet on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Translation: I got caught contradicting myself yet again. Luckily, I can do my usual "semantics" thing and then switch to commenting on something that wasn't even being argued... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Roberto Luongo. Roberto Luongo. The thread is for Roberto Luongo. Not King of the ES's crazy rants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Roberto Luongo. Roberto Luongo. The thread is for Roberto Luongo. Not King of the ES's crazy rants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 There's going to be zero news regarding Louie for the forseeable future, thanks to the lockout Exposing King's myriad contradictions is what will pass for entertainment in the interim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunningWild Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Insider Trading today. Talked about Luongo (right side of screen): http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/ontsn/# Dreger basically said Canucks say there are 5 teams in the mix. He thinks Florida is still the front runner. But Florida needs Van to take money back, and Gillis won't do it. He said "Its been suggested Gillis would ultimately waive Roberto Luongo to avoid taking on that money But that sounds unlikely". Dreger thinks a Luongo deal will likely be done when a lockout is lifted. Not sure how much I believe Dregs, he's been all over the map on the Lu situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Haha - days gone by and King still trying to school Henrik on manhood... Dreger is just as predictable - still doing the Leafs bidding - five teams in the mix but "it's been suggested" (by what halfwit?) that Gillis could waive Luongo... part hilarious, part ridiculous, part sad contradiction trying to lower the price for brother Burkie and cousin Nonis. Dreger should just give it up - he isn't a credible source where the Canucks and Leafs are concerned. Although waiving Luongo would be preferable to his ludicrous Komisarek lowball, neither are gonna happen. Pretty much any outsider can see that Dreger is talking out his Larfsehole on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 If that makes you feel better, sure. Am I contradicting myself on the basis that I think Henrik should've grown a set and stood up for himself, rather than being immasculated at center ice in front of the world? Nope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 He's just trying to sound like Don Cherry. We all know how many cups his infinite wisdom won him. I'd like to see a guy like Kassian develop in to the Sedins' winger and use his mean side to keep the twins from having to push back, but under no circumstances should the Sedins be expected to be rough between whistles. That's not so smart. We're trying to keep Kesler and Burrows from doing that, cause it's not their role anymore. Why would we ask the twins to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Dreger is just as predictable - still doing the Leafs bidding - five teams in the mix but "it's been suggested" (by what halfwit?) that Gillis could waive Luongo... part hilarious, part ridiculous, part sad contradiction trying to lower the price for brother Burkie and cousin Nonis. Dreger should just give it up - he isn't a credible source where the Canucks and Leafs are concerned. Although waiving Luongo would be preferable to his ludicrous Komisarek lowball, neither are gonna happen. Pretty much any outsider can see that Dreger is talking out his Larfsehole on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Not surprisingly, a disparaging piece of news to the Canucks' clearly awful negotiating position sparks a new conspiracy - Darren Dreger is somehow trying to screw over the Canucks to benefit his cousin. Only in Vancouver. Oldnews, out of curiosity, does this news item make you at least question the valuation that you've put on Luongo, throughout this thread, or is this really a conspiracy by Dreger to somehow persuade Mike Gillis to trade him to the Leafs on the cheap? Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 If that makes you feel better, sure. Am I contradicting myself on the basis that I think Henrik should've grown a set and stood up for himself, rather than being immasculated at center ice in front of the world? Nope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Why would it make him question the valuation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.