Ryan McGill must be pleased. The Pack located their forecheck (hidden under a stack of towels in the trainer’s room), managed to track down their down-low cycling skills (those damn laundry bags are so deep), and even found time to reintroduce the defensemen to each other. They played their hard-hitting, gritty, bust-your-ass-every-shift game, and it paid off.
Hopefully, they won’t forget the lesson learned between now and Friday.
Actually, a significant part of the improvement came from some minor roster changes. Craig Weller was moved back from defense to right wing, where he has excelled this year. His hard hitting along the boards created space for his linemates all night, and kept Pirates looking over their shoulder every shift. As Craig picked up the pace, others such as Alex Giroux and Fedor Tyutin gleefully joined in the beatings, leaving Portland players in heaps around the ice. All three of these guys had monster hits at different points, and it set the tone for an aggressive game from the Pack.
With the space on the blueline created by that move, Matt Kinch was reinserted into the lineup. The invisible man did his thing, providing steady defensive play while chasing down pucks and clearing the zone with a consistency that gave everyone else confidence to start the breakout early. He seems to get thrown around a lot (listed at 5-11, 190), but he manages to hold onto the puck until someone else can take control. Invaluable back there in support of Jason, Matt settles things down and makes our zone calmer.
Chad Wiseman returned to the lineup tonight as well, and was flying. He also had an “A”, which made for three alternate captains: Chad, Lawrence Nycholat and Jamie Pushor. Interestingly, when the guys came back out for the second period, Jamie seemed to have lost his “A”. Guess there actually is a limit on the number of those things you can hand out.
In the spirit of playoffs this year, tonight’s game was much chippier, and promises to only build from here. Both Chad and Dominic Moore went down bleeding from high sticks (but somehow only drew 2 minutes each). Aside from the hits dealt by Fedor, Craig and Alex, there was a large amount of mischief from Lawrence and Bryce Lampman. Dom was his usual infuriating self, and Garth Murray always seemed to be hovering, waiting for a chance to jump in. Both Jeff Paul and Craig Weller seemed to be spoiling for a fight, but when it finally happened, it was from an unexpected source.
Cory Larose had rushed the Pirates net, and received a healthy check when he did so from Portland’s Louis Robitaille. Cory took great offense to this, and the two stared at each other as they skated back to center behind the play. Robitaille dropped the gloves first, but Cory immediately launched himself at his opponent and got the initial jump. Robitaille landed a couple before Cory got his ground, but the Cory came back with a number of hard shots from in close before managing to get Robitaille off balance as he pulled his jersey up. This was followed by an uppercut that snapped Robitaille’s head back, and then a punch to the midsection that seemed to knock the wind out of him. Ready to finish things off, Cory went for the takedown and landed cleanly on top. This on top of a team-leading seven shots on net.
Jozef Balej scored the game’s lone goal, making this contest much more in line with my expectation of a string of 1-0 games. Balej’s goal was almost a mirror image of yesterday’s, as he tapped it in from the post after a dazzling dance by Tyutin through a maze of Portland players in the slot. Jason got his 14th shutout of the season. And while it may seem minor, I got to see an Ortmeyer blocked shot, which made my day. I’ve missed that this year.
Amazingly, out of the 20 players who dressed for tonight’s game, all but Kinch, Lawson and Cuthbert are on our clear day roster. THAT’S improvement. Scratches tonight include Andrews, Filipowicz, MacDonald, Ulmer (all injured) and Cullen, Hereema (healthy) and Grenier (last game of suspension).
Speaking of Grenier… I asked him tonight whether the reports of his comments http://mt.hockeybird.com/archives/002231.html regarding playing in Hartford were true. Considering how irritated he seemed by the question, he was quite restrained in his answer. He insisted that he had never said such a thing, and that while he did enjoy being in Springfield, he also likes playing with the great guys in Hartford. I asked if he had any idea what he might have said that would be interpreted that way, and was treated to a rant that included several pointed comments about people writing lies online. *smile* Well, I guess I didn’t need to introduce myself, then. I didn’t feel the need to point out that all I did in the original article was repeat what I had identified as a rumor – not as fact. Martin got a chance to tell me his side, and here it is for you. I look forward to my original source contacting me with his side.
So here you go, Martin, your own retraction published online for you.
Games 3 and 4 are in Portland on Friday and Sunday... I’ll be there.
eMail this entry!
Thanks Heather for the update. :)
Posted by: BigRangerFan88 on April 22, 2004 12:06 AMSounds like the series is getting better. *big smile*
So you got to see an Orty Spe...Ortmeyer blocked shot? Nice.
Congrats to Cory, and looking forward to games 3 and 4 so that I can be in attendance for 5. *VERY big smile*
"I didn’t feel the need to point out that all I did in the original article was repeat what I had identified as a rumor – not as fact. Martin got a chance to tell me his side, and here it is for you. I look forward to my original source contacting me with his side."
A rumor that could turn out to be false and wasn't addressed for a month.
I have to wonder if you realize here that if it turns out that the rumor is in fact a false one the damage you may have done to Grenier even if that wasn't your intention when repeating that rumor.
The word is Slander and that may have been what you did by repeating the rumor without going right to the source BEFORE publishing the rumor.
You come across as not realizing or caring that you might have hurt someone (again even if that wasn't your intention). For a month your words have been up suggesting that Grenier wanted no part of being on the Wolfpack.
What makes matters worse is that the tone of the article where you call Grenier's response "a rant" suggests that you are unaware that you might have helped to slander a person and that he doesn't have any right to be angry with you.
Does it occur to you that since you posted the original rumor that Grenier has had to defend himself against said accusation? What as he says it isn't true then what? Your words have made the Ranger fan website rounds and IF they in fact turn out to be false only those who visit here will know that.
Hopefully in the future you will be more careful in posting rumors regarding players and what they may or may not have said. Insteading of waiting a month hopefully next time you will take the time to give the person involved a chance to respond BEFORE you publish a rumor.
After all like you Grenier is a person with feelings and I really doubt you would like it if people were going around spreading false rumors about you.
Any of us who are fan reporters have to be really careful in what we say when we write something for the last thing we fan reporters need to do is cause anyone any pain.
i did speak to the source originally - more than one person, actually. none of those people had anything to gain by passing on a story that was untrue. they reported to me what they heard standing outside the springfield civic center, in the crowd of fans as the players made their way to the bus. the fact that the stories matched made it seem worth reporting - as a rumor, because i did not hear it myself directly.
not being an official reporter working for a newspaper, i don't have press access to the players, and can only speak to them when they are scratched, sitting in the stands, and feel inclined to speak to fans. this was the first game that i have seen him at since that time that met all those requirements.
i referred to his response last night as a rant because that's what it was - i want to give my readers an accurate picture of my interactions with players. nothing wrong with ranting, in my mind, its just a description of his manner of communicating. i don't pretend the players all like talking to me. i'm not trying to make them like me.
for what its worth, i still don't believe grenier, but that's my personal opinion. i have published his denial of it here within hours of him giving it to me. there was a reason i asked him if he had any idea what he might have said that could have been misconstrued that way - the guys need to be aware that what they say (particularly in an 'official' format such as right after a game) is heard and repeated among fans.
rumors, labelled as such, are not the same as taking something that hasn't been substantiated and claiming it as fact. i don't do that. my column gives a look at the players as people, their interactions with each other and the fans, in addition to reporting their play in games. if people want to just read the game report, the box score is available online.
and as far as causing someone pain... i really doubt that grenier felt any pain. i have a hard time believing that any of these guys read fan sites for more than amusement. if they like what they see, they pass it on to friends and family. if not, its easy to dismiss what we write - what the hell do we know anyway? i doubt mike mottau ever lost any sleep over my rants about his game.
Posted by: heather on April 22, 2004 04:33 PMSorry Heather but it appears that you don't seem to understand that passing along rumors that can't be proven to be true is wrong whether you are a real reporter or not.
Would it be right of me to write something in which I passed along a rumor that I had heard that said something about you without giving you a chance BEFORE I published said story a chance to tell your side of the story?
Would it be right of me to write such an article and then not make any kind of serious effort to give you a chance to defend yourself for a month? Meanwhile people would be going around thinking that "Heather is a so and so" based simply on a rumor.
The answer is a huge NO it would be wrong for me to do.
By now saying that you don't believe Grenier you are also labeling him a liar and you are basing this on one (just guessing here) short conversation with him. I really doubt that you know him well enough or those close to him to make this judgement a fair one wouldn't you agree?
So again the question begs to be asked "What if it turns out that he never said what you reported to be a rumor?" It is called the benefit of the doubt which you denied him.
First you help to slander him by posting that rumor and then you now have followed it up by defaming him by calling him a liar.
If you can't understand any of this then sorry I am wasting my time here.
If you can't understand having to make someone who might be innocent of something have to defend themselves causes pain then you will sadly never will.
I said my piece and sadly get the idea that you don't think there is nothing wrong with posting something that just might not be true.
Despite what you may think rumors do cause pain for people and I hope you don't find out yourself the hard way how true that is.
Posted by: Jess on April 22, 2004 05:48 PMjust a thought about grenier...
while he may have not liked hartford while he played for springfield...maybe there are more than a few hartford fans that might not have liked him at all when he played for springfield. when this was first "reported" i wondered if some disgrunteled wolfpack fan might have started it cuz they weren't too keen on grenier.
Posted by: Levitate on April 22, 2004 06:48 PMjess -
i hardly think it is defaming someone to say i personally don't believe them. i even explicitly stated that it was just my opinion.
i hear what you are saying, i just don't agree with you.
levitate -
grenier has been gone from springfield for awhile now, he actually came to us in trade from manitoba. and players from opposing teams who contribute to the pack, no matter how hated they may have been when they wore the enemies colors, have been accepted by fans for the most part. honestly, tibbets is the only exception i can think of, perhaps marquis mathieu as well. and like i said, i did hear this from more than one source.
Posted by: heather on April 22, 2004 07:56 PMBeing a "real reporter" with a press pass and everything, rumors are part of what we do. If it's rumored that a guy might sign with this team, or rumored that this player had a disagreement with this coach, what you do next depends on your sources.
If you trust your source enough and they've been reliable in the past, you go with it, because there is no second place in this business. If you don't get the news out first, then why should people go to you as a news-reporting organization.
Just because the player tells you one thing, it doesn't mean that's the way it is. I've heard stories of a player saying he fell on a glass, when instead the hooker he stiffed was the one throwing the glass. Just as a reporter will, the player will put his or her own spin on things. Based on Grenier's past actions or reputation, I don't fault Heather for making the statements she made, and if you really feel like what's reported here has that big of an impact on Grenier's career, I think you're looking into things a bit too much to begin with.
Heather trusted her sources here and she cannot be faulted for that. If anything, we should feel very fortunate that we have someone here who is providing in-depth updates of the games she attends and is willing to even travel to the team's road games and then tell us all about the games.
Posted by: mike on April 22, 2004 08:19 PMJess - Several things.
1) I find it bizarre that a man who has spent the better part of two years writing with near bottomless vitriol about Glen Sather and James Dolan would presume to write a lecture about the dangers of hurting peoples feelings in print.
Martin Grenier is suffering character assasination because Heather published a rumor, as a rumor, about him saying something stupid? What then about your articles aligning Sather and the Dolan's with all that is unholy in the universe, accusing them of gross incompetence, complete stupidity, and moral bankruptcy? Shouldn't someone have lept to Jimmy's defense? Hell, he's lost tens of millions of dollars supporting this losing endevor. Martin Grenier is at least turning a profit on his as-yet-disapointing-NHL-career.
And given your rather high-handed ethical tone you've taken, I would hope you aren't going to attempt to make some legalistic distinction between Heather's allegation of a specific incident and your broad-stroke assault on all things Cablevision. Please point to an ethical difference, if there is one.
2) Heather's got a contact email posted with every article she's written, same as you do at RFC. She has limited access to Grenier to begin with, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Wolfpack players know who she is, know where she sits, and know she's at most of the home games. If Grenier had wanted to set the record straight sooner, he could have emailed her. He could have walked over to her. Hell, his goalie (Labarberra) knew who she was on sight (per her article in March).
Are we to believe that the 6'5" 250 lbs. professional athlete is unable to confront a school teacher and season ticket holder? Is he so defenseless a creature? And did you provide Sather equal time to rebutt any of your criticisms?
3) You do realize that you are holding Heather to a higher standard than most paid journalists follow, right? Journalism 101: get two independent sources (which Heather appears to have done) for a statement you didn't see or hear yourself, but you do not have to offer the speaker a chance to rebutt, especially if the speaker is unavailable or unwilling to talk. Hell, do you think Larry Brooks calls up Messier every time he wants to print another article about how the Captain is a divisive force in the lockroom? How many of his 'sources' do you think are Bobby Holik?
Posted by: Kubera55 on April 22, 2004 10:06 PMLet me deal with Kubera first.
When I have written about Dolans and Sather I never once said they said something that wasn't ever used in the real media. If you can show me a case where I misquoted them please feel free to show me where.
As for Heather's allegation rumor or whatever you want to call it, I disagree with how she handled it. I am not trying to go into any kind of legal mucky mucky with it but I do happen to know of a couple of websites that were forced to be shut down because they published a rumor that turned out to be false.
If suggesting that there is any possibility that the rumor is false is holding her to a higher standard than real reporters then I will plead guilty to it. Fan reporters (including myself) have to work twice as hard to develop credibility and if we use something that just might not be true then not only do we hurt our own credibility but also the site we write for.
I happen to know about ruining ones own credibility as I did that to myself last summer and if not for Bird I wouldn't be writing anymore. I don't want to see that happen to anyone else who has the kind of passion for what they write about as Heather does.
Rumors can be damaging to people and perhaps it becomes a judgement call for each person.
Heather
I will send you an email but want to make sure in public that I mean you no malice or am trying to discredit you in any way.
Posted by: Jess on April 23, 2004 01:46 AMHere's a good one for everyone reading all this.
Last season, I had a player come up to me and tell me that the team had just released a player and he went on to go over the reasons why. I have no reason not to trust this player, as he and I spoke a lot and he was among the nicest on the team.
The next day, I step into the locker room to find said "released player" enjoying his pre-game meal. Do I think that the player who told me he got released was intentionally lying to me? No. Do I think he was mis-informed? Yes.
But, if I had decided to report that the player had been released, it would have been my butt on the line for it.
My point is, is that you can never be too careful and to consider your sources when reporting. Heather says that this source had been very reliable in the past, and things have obviously been cleared up...so no harm, no foul. And again, if Grenier really puts a lot of stock into what he may or may not see here...well, I'm not sure what that says about the site itself, whether that's good or bad.
Posted by: Mike on April 23, 2004 02:53 AM"I'm not sure what that says about the site itself, whether that's good or bad."
Just spell Hockeybird.com correctly !
I fully support Heather and what she's done with this issue. She reported a rumor as just that, a rumor. She then had the player in question respond to said rumor right here on Hockeybird. I think that's fair.
What I like about it is that the Wolf*Pack players can now trust Heather to give their version of a story....and maybe they'll go to her with things that have been mis-represented in other media outlets. They should now know that Heather will allow them their say on any issue, even if it is here on our dinky little Hockeybird site.
Keep up the great work Heather.....and Good Luck to the Pack on their run for the Cup !
----}- Bird
|
Recent Articles
|
|
|