Guy Should Have A Blog

Guy Lafleur should have a blog. Imagine the insights we’d get!

Guy could tell us all about his troubles with Jacques Lemaire, about why the team hasn’t won the Cup since 1993, why Rejean Houle didn’t get enough in return for Patrick Roy, why Steve Shutt was hard on rookies, what he thinks Michel Therrien is doing wrong, why sometimes there’s not enough foam on the Bell Centre beer. All kinds of stuff.

Imagine the readership he’d get. We’d rush to open his blog to see what he says. It might be the most fascinating blog in the history of blogs.

“You can’t keep guys like Vanek and Pacioretty on the team,” Lafleur now says. “They should stay home if they’re not willing to pay the price. Your team won’t win with players like that who disappear under adversity.”

Guy would get a million hits for that story alone. Advertisers would flock to him. He’d be the king of bloggers.

Lafleur was basically talking about game six of the Rangers series that ended the Habs year. New York threw a blanket over the Canadiens and that was that.

The problem, I think, is that some of the true greats like Lafleur sometimes expect others to step it up in superstar fashion, and I guess lately he’s been stewing about the team, Max and Vanek in particular, not pulling out all the stops in that final game.

Max, however, had scored the winning goal in both the Tampa and Boston series which eliminated those teams, so it wasn’t like he was going through the motions. He’s enjoyed some fine moments. But Guy was focused mostly on game six of the Rangers series when all the boys, not just Max, were stuck in mud.

Vanek, I still don’t know. Guy might have a point there. The guy had helped kickstart the team into another level when he joined them, but was definitely a disappointment in the postseason, not just game six but throughout.

But he’s probably gone anyway so it doesn’t matter what Guy says about it.

Some guys think out loud like Guy, others don’t. Bobby Orr’s teammates in Boston said that if they weren’t playing well in big games, they’d look over at Orr in the dressing room and he’d be glaring at certain guys. No words, just two eyes. If Orr was glaring at you, it wasn’t good.

Lafleur’s very much like Maurice Richard in some ways. Rocket sometimes couldn’t contain himself either, and after too much criticism in his ghost-written newspaper column, sometimes about other players and teams but particularly about league prez Clarence Campbell, Rocket was told to forget the column or else.

But no one could tell Guy to forget his blog. He could carry about things and Gary Bettman or Geoff Molson couldn’t say a thing.

C’mon Guy, start your blog. Get it all out, right or wrong, and make some serious coin doing it.



10 thoughts on “Guy Should Have A Blog”

  1. I wonder where Guy’s outrage was when Gomez was here. If he says that about Pacioretty and Vanek…his comments about Gomez would have been epic.

    On one hand it’s nice to see some honesty but on the other I think he’s being really unfair to Pacioretty considering what he’s been through. I think that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he does have heart. How many players would have called it a day or become a pale shadow of what they once were?

    I can agree on Vanek, but I think the Pacioretty comments are unfair.

  2. When you’re Guy Lafleur, you don’t need a blog, just call up La Presse and they’ll publish whatever you say. Not having the blog also shields him from having to answer questions. And all those annoying IT problems.

    I can accept that Pacioretty isn’t the best player to build a team around. There’s a fairly common idea that it should be a centre who controls the play. But who’s better for only $4M ($4.5M cap hit)?

  3. But think of the advertising dollars he could rake in Christopher. He’d be the Puck Daddy of Montreal. And as far as Max goes, he’s big and talented and part of the core and he probably doesn’t appreciate Guy’s remarks. Max took exception to the abuse given to DD and now it’s on him. The entire team was blanketed in that game six. Not sure if Lafleur was playing he’d be any different.

  4. Good point, Darth. Guy never blasted Gomez as far as I know. I agree with you, I think the comments were unfair. No one on the team played well in game six. All we need is for Max to take this kind of thing to heart and want out. Guy’s remarks don’t help.

  5. Vanek is probably history as far as Montreal is concerned so it really won’t really matter in the long run. However, Vanek may keep this in back of his mind and score some revenge goals when he comes back to Montreal with another team. As for Pacioretty, he’s probably used to the Montreal media and I bet he has taken Guy Lafleur’s remarks with a grain of salt.

  6. They’re our first line. We expected more out of them and he is saying what we all thought.

  7. And so he should Danno, I loved him as a player but later in life with his covering up for his Son etc I lost a lot of respect for the man.

  8. Marjo, I can’t disagree with what you say, but comments like Guy’s, which are read everywhere, can only hurt the team and the players he talks about. I prefer older stars who embrace this new generation of players and team. It’s all about winning the Cup and we see how hard it is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *