Colin Campbell's Double Standard Strikes Again

Before we get to the latest BS suspension from Colin Campbell, there's some important Lighthouse stuff going on at Hofstra today. Read up on the importance of today's meeting here and here; follow along with the proceedings here.

***

The news that Pascal Morency was suspended for ten games (five preseason, five regular season) comes as no surprise to the writers of this blog. No, it's not because we believe, as many do, that ex-Rangers coach Colin Campbell has a secret vendetta against the Islanders. Instead, it's because we're well aware of the double standard that exists in the NHL when it comes to suspensions.

The NHL has no problem throwing its weight around when it comes to suspending a fringe player. However, when a superstar is involved, things become very shady. For instance, Chris Pronger still having a very well-paying job in the NHL despite his lengthy rap sheet. Of course, that rap sheet was significantly lessened by the the likes of Campbell, who just can't seem to pull the trigger when superstars are under review.

You may recall Chris Simon's stomp of Jarko Ruutu from December of 2007. You know, the incident that netted Simon a 30-game suspension. You may also recall that Pronger did the exact same thing to Ryan Kesler three months later and got nothing. Until, of course, everybody flipped out, and then Pronger got an 8-game ban that conveniently ended when the playoffs started.

By giving Morency ten games, Campbell is essentially saying that what Morency did is worse than what Pronger did - and that's something that got a lesser player 30 games. And what exactly did Morency do? Yes, he jumped the boards to start a fight, but he was about to come onto the ice for his shift anyway. He then attempted to defend a teammate that was knocked unconscious, which is what an enforcer is supposed to do. So, if you think about it that way, he was suspended for ten games for doing his job. And yet, if he didn't do his job, he would have been cut immediately by the Islanders for not standing up for his fallen teammate.

Now, let's go back in time once again, this time to the 2009 Stanley Cup Final. You may recall Evgeni Malkin receiving a fight instigator penalty in the final minutes of Game 2. NHL rules clearly stipulate that any player receiving an instigator penalty in the final five minutes of a game also gets a one-game suspension. But do you really think the NHL was going to suspend Malkin in its big TV-ratings showcase? Of course not!

If you really want to get picky about it, you can argue that Malkin's instigator was far more egregous than Morency's. At least Morency had a reason to start a fight. Malkin's fight came at the end of a game as the result of a scrum caused by his own teammate (Max Talbot), which could be interpreted as "sending a message" - the very thing the NHL legislated against before the playoffs. Yet, Morency's the one who gets the big suspension. Go figure.

But we all know that the NHL kowtows to its superstars. Every league does it; most don't stoop to the levels of the NHL. So the NHL bullies its lesser-known players just to prove a point. Donald Brashear deserved something for his attack on Blair Betts in last year's playoffs. But there was no way he'd get six games if he wasn't playing roughly five minutes a game. Morency's suspension falls into the category of the NHL abusing its power. Unfortunately, Colin Campbell's ruling has all but killed any chance of Morency playing for the Islanders in 2009-10. True, he wasn't going to make the team. But now, if the Islanders want to call him up, they must take into account his five-game regular season suspension. The Islanders don't have the roster room to keep someone on their NHL roster just to clear a suspension. So, not only does this screw over the Islanders, but it potentially costs Morency a ton of money, as two-way deals are exponentially more lucrative in the NHL than they are anywhere else.

One last note about this suspension. If you really want someone to blame for all of this, blame the NHL itself. The NHL is the organization that allows preseason games to become endless fight-fests in the first place. The NHL charges full price for preseason games, then turns a blind eye when games devolve into mindless line brawls just so aspiring goons can fight established goons for no reason. The NHL does this for as long as it can, then suspends the crap out of someone who dares to touch a superstar. The shame of it is, a guy like Chris Pronger would never be in this situation, largely because no team would give its biggest stars serious minutes in a game where players go out of their way to hurt each other just to stand out. So, while Colin Campbell screwed up by handing Pascal Morency a ridiculous suspension, it's really the NHL's fault for allowing this violence to occur.

Just Brainstorming Here...

I'm back from Las Vegas (mid-September and still 100 degrees!) and I received a 2-for-1 in the week I was gone. Not only was Dany Heatley traded, but Phil Kessel was as well, leaving September only for training camp, and no drama.

I'm just brainstorming, but let's say for argument's sake, the 6 defensemen who make the Rangers roster for opening night are: Michal Rozsival, Wade Redden, Dan Girardi, Marc Staal, Mike del Zotto, and Matt Gilroy. Not a huge stretch, right? Sure, you could possibly sub Bobby Sanguinetti in for del Zotto, but that has no effect on my point today.

The newspaper today said that Rozsival and Redden would be top pairing, like they were together for most of last season. My question is: Why?

Now, it's well-documented that I am against having Redden and Rozsival on the team simply because this is a Salary Cap Era. If there was no Cap, then having a waste of space like Wade Redden on the team would simply be par for the course. They'd demote him to 3rd-line pairing or send him to Hartford, and spend big money on someone better than him.

Of course, since his $6.5M/year is looming large for the next 5 years, he has no choice but to play. And of course, it ultimately cost Tom Renney his job, as Renney's over-reliance on him led to his downfall.

Same for Rozsival. While I may personally like Rozsival and think he is a decent defenseman, he in no way warrants $5M/year, Salary Cap Era or not.

So why pair them together? They were horrendous separately and together last year. Plus, by doing that, you are putting 2 pairs of "kids" on the blueline.

Girardi and Staal should be a tandem. They were last year often, they play well together, one is a lefty, one is a righty. Both broke into the league near the same time and both are equally as good as the other.

So that leaves Del Zotto and Gilroy, two rookies together, no?

I say John Tortorella should put Gilroy with either Redden or Rozsival, and Del Zotto with the other one. That way the future top-pairing could learn from the veterans, who could (hopefully) cover the mistakes the rookies make.

Couldn't hurt, right?

My ideal pairings...
Redden - Gilroy (Redden is a left-handed shot, Gilroy a right-handed shot)
Staal - Girardi (Staal, lefty; Girardi, righty)
Del Zotto - Rozsival (Del Zotto, lefty; Rozsival, righty)

I mean, it's not like Redden and Rozsival were so dominant last season that breaking them up would be disastrous. They aren't MacInnis-Suter, Leetch-Beukeboom, or Stevens-Neidermayer. Hell, they aren't even Staal-Girardi. They're one step better than the pre-lockout pairing of Vladimir Malakhov and Boris Mironov.

It worked 2 years ago when Staal paired with Paul Mara. Why not let the rookies learn from the veterans? At the very least, they could learn what not to do.

So This Is How It's Going To Be

The Islanders are about to head to training camp. John Tavares is about to take the ice in OUR colors for the first time. We're about to get hockey back after six long months.

And yet, we can't enjoy any of it.

We're not going to get into the politics of the Lighthouse Project here. There are plenty of other places to follow that saga if you're so inclined. Yes, it's important. It's EXTREMELY important. But it's not hockey, and we're here to talk about hockey. And, to be honest, the Lighthouse stuff is getting in the way of what should be a very exciting time for Islanders fans.

Look, we're not downplaying the significance of any of this. But it's almost like people are ready to write the Islanders a one-way ticket to Queens, or Hamilton, or Las Vegas, or Kansas City, or wherever. We're not going to do that. Everytime I go out in Islanders gear, someone asks me what I'm going to do when the Islanders leave, and I'm f***ing sick of it. We should be discussing the on-ice future of the Islanders, not preparing the Islanders' eulogy.

On September 22, the Lighthouse re-zoning meeting will take place at Hofstra. That night, the Islanders will play the Los Angeles Kings at the Sprint Center in Kansas City. I, for one, will be solely focused on the Islanders, and not just to scout out the team's future building. I want to see John Tavares and Kyle Okposo and get a glimpse of this wonderful future we have all earned. Call me a bad Islanders fan or an irresponsible writer if you want. But I'm not letting bulls**t politics ruin what could be a special season. After all, who knows how many seasons we have left?

I'm not saying the Lighthouse doesn't matter. I'm not saying I don't think the team will move. I'm just saying I refuse to take the New York Islanders for granted. And damn the Town of Hempstead for daring to ruin this season for me.