MONTREAL, QC. — When the post was published on Wednesday on our pages detailing Guy Lafleur‘s comments about Max Pacioretty and Thomas Vanek, it was assumed that there was little need to delve too deeply or provide a detailed analysis. After all, this was a no-brainer. Lafleur went way over the line in terms of his criticism, ridiculously so.
But this is Montreal, so a bizarre thing happened. A number of fans began defending Lafleur’s words. It’s difficult to comprehend because the words are hard to defend.
For now, since it is likely that Vanek has played his last game for the Canadiens, let’s focus on Pacioretty.
Some fans tried to redefine the meaning saying that Pacioretty could have played better in the playoffs. If that’s what Lafleur said, there wouldn’t be an issue. In fact Pacioretty would likely agree. But that is not what Lafleur said.
He said that “Guys like Vanek and Pacioretty, you can’t keep these guys on your team.” Can’t keep them on your team. In the case of Pacioretty, he needs to be traded.
This was not said by a fan nor was it said by a member of the media. The words were spoken by a Canadiens legend, a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame.
Words have power, especially when spoken from that pulpit.
When Guy Lafleur was struggling early in his career, particularly in the playoffs, imagine what would have happened if Maurice Richard said, “Trade him!”
But the Rocket wouldn’t have done so, because it is an irresponsible thing to say. With fame, comes responsibility, a lesson that Lafleur seems to have forgotten.
What brings this comment to the level of foolish is that Lafleur is not only one of the best players to ever wear the CH, but he is currently an official ambassador of the Montreal Canadiens, a representative of the team. In that role, he needs to understand how his words will be received. Taking all this into account, Lafleur had no business putting a target on Pacioretty’s back.
But Lafleur didn’t stop there. He said that Pacioretty was “unwilling to pay the price.” That is just an ignorant statement. Pacioretty suffered a C4 fracture and a severe concussion resulting from the violent hit from Zdeno Chara. I would say that Max is more than willing to pay the price.
Similarly, it’s clear that Pacioretty has faced adversity in his career. On this, Lafleur is just wrong, embarrassingly so.
Again. let’s be clear. Lafleur’s comments can be criticized while still applauding his accomplishments as a player.
There are some undertones to this issue in addition to performance on the ice. Discussion has already begun on who will be the next captain of the Canadiens with Brian Gionta leaving this summer or a year or two down the road. Speaking with their hearts, some fans toss out P.K. Subban‘s name. But the more serious candidates are Josh Gorges and none other than Max Pacioretty.
No one would ever accuse Lafleur of being a strategic thinker to try to derail Pacioretty but his comments serve those who are horrified at the prospect of a second consecutive American-born captain. Critical comments from a person with the stature of Lafleur could be twisted to make a case against Max.
Lastly, some claim that Lafleur’s words will be motivating. Pacioretty hasn’t spoken on the Lafleur issue but he did address the issue of criticism at the end of the season.
Speaking to Arpon Basu, Pacioretty said, “The thing that bothers me is the unfairness, and it seems like some people get it more than others. I’m not saying I do, I’m not saying at times it’s not deserved. But people should be held to same standard and it should be reasonable. We exceeded everybody’s expectations this year, and I think I did personally as well. But when you’re 15 games into the year and you can’t turn on the TV without people talking about you getting traded for Evander Kane, it can be frustrating.”
He continued, “I hope people realize that this is a really tough place to play, but I love playing here and I want to play here. I’m trying to deal with it as best I can at times, but I just want that respect back sometimes.”
“I can handle having a bad game and having people tell me that, and I can handle people critiquing my game and having an honest opinion. But, people mentioned I scored 39 goals, I think I was fourth in the league and to take heat about scoring goals from no one that’s ever scored an NHL goal really bothers me at times.”
Suffice to say, there is no chance that Pacioretty is going to find the words motivating.
Guy Lafleur played in a different era. It was a different game, a different league and quite a different city. And he is well aware of what it’s like not to live up to expectations after struggling for his first three years in the NHL, in the regular season and the playoffs.
In the Canadiens 1973-’74 playoff series against the lower seeded New York Rangers, Lafleur managed just one assist in six games and the Habs went on to lose the series four games to two. There were a number of reasons for Lafleur’s eventual turnaround but one event that had a lasting impact was a private meeting with retired player Jean Beliveau who was serving, in part, as a good-will ambassador for the Canadiens. Believeau told him not to worry about the criticism and just play the way he had been playing. Lafleur began to flourish and Beliveau praised him as “the most complete player in the game today.”
Lafleur once said that “in the NHL, 95 per cent of success is confidence.”
Discretion, mentorship and confidence-building are things that classy people do. Lafleur would have been wise to remember that lesson and how to conduct himself as an ambassador.