[Rumour] Brooks: Rangers could have Tony DeAngelo trade partner in Flames

[P-DAZZLE]

The phrasing of this question is not how the article presents it: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ency-1.3868677 If you think about the question, it leaves the door open for people to not support Trump for many reasons but still consider that his decisions could be beneficial for someone's family. Someone who thinks Trump is an awful person, but the impact on my family will be good because of his approach to pipelines and traditional energy. That would not characterize everyone who chose "positive" as a response, but some people had to think that way and are considered as viewing Trump "favourably" by the article.

This sort of gets to the crux of the whole issue that keeps coming up in threads and relates to DeAngelo though. I think it is totally acceptable to say "let's keep politics out of hockey talk and the work place" when it comes to things like economic policy. Some people are going to favour neoconservative economics and some are going to favour more social spending (I do think that neocon or trickle down approaches are starting to be viewed by many as negative for human rights but it is at least a step or two to get from a system that is supposed to be intended to improve the economy for all to bias or systemic prejudice). As long as someone is not prejudiced or in favour of violating human rights, there really isn't a need for everyone to agree. With Trump though, the prejudice is so thinly-veiled at this point that you can't really just say let's not make this political. If DeAngelo or someone else is presenting themself as a Trump supporter it becomes a human or social issue and not an issue of mere "politics".

I saw posts during the Harper administration where people didn't want to talk about the Conservatives and the Liberals and that seemed fine to me. Even now, if someone doesn't want to talk about Trudeau and his missteps in a thread, that makes sense to me too. If it is something to do with Trump or racism in hockey or systemic racism (yes, the Holtby mask cultural appropriation debate) then it is part of the discussion and that's what the forum is here for.

TL;DR- Some things are relevant to the hockey discussion even though they include larger issues or social issues. Sometimes political parties or policies move beyond the label of "politics" and are relevant to discussion.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Azhouse

The Oilers in the 80s would have acquired him and won a cup. They already had MacT.

MacTavish did a really stupid thing that resulted in a terrible tragedy. And he paid for that mistake. He still pays for it, no doubt.

He was (is) otherwise a great guy, however, and was a great team-mate. He is nothing like DeAngelo

[codynw]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

No way DeAngelo would even want to come to "socialist" Canada imo...

It can be hard to keep up, but I think people like DeAngelo have started calling us communists now.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by sec304

Just say no to D'angelo

This is the only answer

[bdubbs]

Ignoring all the irrelevant stuff, I don't think this guy's offense makes up for his defensive deficiencies and thus do not want him.

[Azhouse]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

MacTavish did a really stupid thing that resulted in a terrible tragedy. And he paid for that mistake. He still pays for it, no doubt.

He was (is) otherwise a great guy, however, and was a great team-mate. He is nothing like DeAngelo

Plus him and Lowe know a thing or two about winning.

[GreenLantern2814]

I’ll just say this again.

Tony DeAngelo was such a tool to his own goalie after a loss that Chris Kreider needed to punch DeAngelo in the head to subdue him.

That’s why he’s not on the Rangers. He cannot be relied upon.

To say nothing of his defensive zone coverage.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I’ll just say this again.

Tony DeAngelo attacked his own goalie after a loss, and was so out of control that Chris Kreider needed to punch DeAngelo in the head to subdue him.

That’s why he’s not on the Rangers. He cannot be relied upon to not assault his teammates.

To say nothing of his defensive zone coverage.

Tony DeAngelo was talking !@#$ to his goalie after a loss. The goalie punched, and then put him in a headlock. DeAngelo seems like a total knob, but he got decked for beaking his goalie - he didn't instigate a physical attack on his goalie.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Tony DeAngelo was talking !@#$ to his goalie after a loss. The goalie punched, and then put him in a headlock. DeAngelo seems like a total knob, but he got decked for beaking his goalie - he didn't instigate a physical attack on his goalie.

That's what I heard but the impression was that the beaking was over the top (and not the only time).

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I’ll just say this again.

Tony DeAngelo attacked his own goalie after a loss, and was so out of control that Chris Kreider needed to punch DeAngelo in the head to subdue him.

That’s why he’s not on the Rangers. He cannot be relied upon to not assault his teammates.

To say nothing of his defensive zone coverage.

Wow, I have never seen a more wrong statement on this site.

It has been reported by many outlets what happened and what you described is not it.

Edit: Sorry for piling on!

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's what I heard but the impression was that the beaking was over the top (and not the only time).

Oh yeah, it sounds like the punch was well deserved - but it's still a point to be made that DeAngelo didn't physically attack his goalie.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

MacTavish did a really stupid thing that resulted in a terrible tragedy. And he paid for that mistake. He still pays for it, no doubt.

He was (is) otherwise a great guy, however, and was a great team-mate. He is nothing like DeAngelo

As a person who lost someone to a drunk driver this is just offensive. He paid for that mistake by serving one year? I don't fn think so. If you do then you have issues.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

As a person who lost someone to a drunk driver this is just offensive. He paid for that mistake by serving one year? I don't fn think so. If you do then you have issues.

I am very sorry for your loss.

But it is not up to me to decide what the right punishment is. Nor is that something that can be solved here. Nor does it change what happened.

He served the time he was sentenced. And my point was that, despite this one horrible and tragic mistake, he is a great person. It no doubt still haunts him, and serving time will never bring people back.

I do not have issues, thanks.

[browntrout]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

As a person who lost someone to a drunk driver this is just offensive. He paid for that mistake by serving one year? I don't fn think so. If you do then you have issues.

So because he disagrees with you....he has deep seated issues? Not sure what he said that was so offensive in the first place

[cannon7]

My schadenfreude is strong with this rumor.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by cannon7

My schadenfreude is strong with this rumor.

Can we really call it a rumour if it's coming from Brooks?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

As a person who lost someone to a drunk driver this is just offensive. He paid for that mistake by serving one year? I don't fn think so. If you do then you have issues.

Issues for agreeing with the justice system?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Can we really call it a rumour if it's coming from Brooks?

I think, by definition, yes?

[Jiri Hrdina]

We should call them Brumours.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I think, by definition, yes?

What's next, we going to start taking Francis and Eklund seriously too?