Lecavalier doesn't need Montreal
After reading this piece, I for one think Farber should reserve his Montreal Canadiens commentary to his annual December-time piece that tries to tell us what the Habs PP is all about. Last year he said it was all Koivu. this year, he implies that he thought Streit was the impetus for success. Short memories aside, I am not here to criticise his assessment of PP tactics. Maybe he should just call it a day.
I wish to take issue with his Lecavalier piece.
It's written in the most annoying of styles (be kind if I ever use it here), the letter to the player. Still more annoying is it's peppering with lines like these:
This deal makes sense to everybody but you.
And why is that Michael?
Numerous reasons apparently:
1) Hockey - more specifically, the Canadiens -- is bigger than ever
2) You have your Stanley Cup
3) And you don't have the need to come "home" because, even though most people don't know this about you, you are a worldly guy with an open spirit (as they say in French)
For the first argument, Farber induces the childish and age-old argument that he could do without the media. After all hockey is a religion here now (Oh, is it Farber? Have you been to the course then when they concluded that? I was mistaken for thinking the course was examining the similarities, I didn't know the conclusion had been published).
Farber should ask Alex Tanguay how hard it is for players coming to Montreal. I don't think Alex has spent more than a half-hour on TV so far. No one has questioned his $6 million salary and he fades into the background because he wants to. I guess that wouldn't support the argument, though. In any case, Tanguay only shows that the media looks worse from the outside than it is on the inside.
His second argument is not much more convincing. But then I probably just forgot that once players win once they are sated for victory and all its spoils. Vincent has his sights on the President's trophy now, the coveted trophy he hasn't won yet.
His third argument makes as much sense as the other two.
It's a confusing piece from a writer I respect, and (dare I say) like reading. Maybe he did it so RDS would pick it up in translation as they did. Maybe he did it because he was bored. Maybe he did it to work up a storm: I don't even want Lecavalier and I'm all wound up now.
Montreal doesn't need Farber. Not if this is the best he can offer nowadays...