porp wrote:Strangelove wrote:Cherry went directly from there to a bit of a pro-fighting rant: “Which would you rather have? Now we’ve got two star players out, Daniel and Keith. If you don’t have the fighting you have that stuff”.
What the heck does that mean? If there was no instigator that Keith would have made Daniel fight?
Or if Keith took his drubbings from Juice or Kas, that there'd be no hard(er) feelings?
Bingo. It means nothing. The Canucks tried to get after him every chance they got. He declined, we took penalties. The instigator doesn't stop A) Sedin from finishing his check, B) Keith taking a cheap-shot, or C) the Canucks going after him every chance they get.