Do teams need to waste a roster spot on a one-man Goon Squad who can’t find the back of the net with a compass? Or should every player be expected to man-up and defend their teammates in the heat of battle?
Bolts fans will remember Vinny Lecavalier fighting Jarome Iginla during the ’04 Stanley Cup finals, but did Tampa Bay or Calgary really want to risk losing either one of them to an injury just to make a statement?
And while no one who appreciates great hockey wants to witness a thug taking out another team’s franchise player with a dirty hit to the head, fighting has been a part of the sport since its inception.
Let’s be clear now that headhunting and hockey fighting isn’t one and the same thing. And that’s why only 53% of the 237 NHLPA members who voted in a 2012 survey wanted to keep the instigator rule, down 13% from the year before.
Human nature is always going to make fighting a part of hockey. It’s just the way it is; you take advantage of our star player, you’re going to pay for it. Fights can also serve as a momentum-changer in a close game that’s not going your way. And, heck, if we’re getting humiliated 5-0 in the first period, I just might be in a crummy mood and want to take a whack at the first opposing jersey I see.
If I’m a coach, though, I don’t want a player who can’t do anything for my team except drop his gloves. What I want is a bench of highly intense players who will use their skills and passion for winning to do whatever it takes for sixty minutes and earn the two points. If a fight happens, so be it.
What do you think? Do teams need a designated thug as an insurance policy for their better players? Or does the no clutch, no-grab new NHL demand that teams discover better ways to settle their differences?