What is going on with Shawn Thornton?

SpacemanzGerbil

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2001
2,964
This guy has one fight since mid-October. Since then, Iginla has fought twice, Chara once and Lucic fought a nobody last night. I really don't care if Thornton fights every game, but the Bruins shouldn't have their key players fighting scrubs while their enforcer is turning down dances.
 
Is this guy hurt, timid or is it something else? Seems to me, he isn't doing his job and it is getting passed off onto more productive players.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
I didn't see the Columbus game, but when has Thornton turned anyone down?

The other fights seem reactionary to what's going on down on the ice. Thornton wasn't on the ice in any of those instances. What is he supposed to do? I
 

SpacemanzGerbil

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2001
2,964
cshea said:
I didn't see the Columbus game, but when has Thornton turned anyone down?

The other fights seem reactionary to what's going on down on the ice. Thornton wasn't on the ice in any of those instances. What is he supposed to do? I
There were a few times over the past month where he was getting the offer (slash, chirping, whatever) and, for some reason, declined the invite. It is tough to see on television, so I'm not sure how often it happens.
 
The other fights are reactionary, but if Thornton engages the stiffs, they aren't on the ice to cause mayhem. You could see the Blue Jackets ramping up the aggressiveness, and I'm not sure why Lucic had to fight a plug and sit for five while Thornton was taking a regular shift.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
I think Thornton is playing good hockey at this point in the season.  I wish Claude wouldn't make him a healthy scratch in favor of Jordan Caron so much.  He already has as many goals this year as he did last year in 20 less games and the 4th line plays much better with him on it than when he's on the 9th floor.  Fighting or not, I like what I see out of him.
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,694
The Dirty Shire
The Lucic fight was because the scrub got his hands up in Looch's face early, and kind of cheap-shotted him. Looch responded and fought him. Seemed organic to me, and having Thornton find him a few shifts from then seemed unnecessary. 
 
I don't think it's an issue. Seems more coincidental. 
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
10,446
Some fancy town in CT
I haven't seen any backing down, but then again my game viewing has been a little sporadic the last month.
 
He did fight Krys Barch on November 7 FWIW.
 

SpacemanzGerbil

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2001
2,964
Dummy Hoy said:
Did you really suggest Thornton may be timid?
It is either that or he is hurt. Thornton is checking well, but he is not fighting. He had three bouts within a week and a half to start the season and has had one since then. Nobody has reported a cast on his hand or anything, so maybe he got his bell rung and cannot fight. Something has to be up, as it has been almost a month now.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
Who cares? They just completed a 10-3-2 month. Thornton scored 2 goals for them over that stretch, and was a part of the 4th lines resurgence. The Bruins were playing with a lead in almost every game in which case fighting, especially between fellow knuckle draggers, doesn't benefit the team. Also, in quickly perusing then game logs, the Bruins didn't really play anyone with a fighter in Thornton's class during the month.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,232
Falmouth
No that's fair to question...the usage of the word timid suggested fear (not that you suggested it) which I think is laughable. The day Thornton is scared to fight he'll hang 'em up.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
This thing about Thornton is that for a "goon" he's actually a pretty good hockey player. He's not John Scott, he can skate and pass and forecheck and generally contribute in ways other than fighting. He even shows a bit of a scoring touch every once in a while.
 
So Thornton not fighting is of little concern to me.
 

SpacemanzGerbil

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2001
2,964
I look at Thornton's role this way: He can certainly play hockey, and has played very well since Claude benched him the first time. But he still needs to drop them to bleed off the opponent's aggression once in a while. It would have helped calm that game Saturday down significantly (I do realize they owned that game, but Columbus was starting to get fairly dirty for a while) and it will certainly be needed once Toronto's Palookaville Circus comes to town again.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
I'm not sure I want Thornton taking unnecessary penalties or even an extra pounding on his body just to boost his fighting major count.  It's not like the team is getting pushed around, and I'm fairly certain Thornton will be there when Buffalo comes to town. 
 

ThreatLevelMidnight

New Member
Aug 29, 2012
19
Watertown
He will definitely have some opportunities coming up soon:
 
12/5 at Montreal- George Parros will be looking. Also expect Moen, Prust, and White to be dressed.
12/7 vs. Pittsburgh- Deryk Engelland hasn't fought since Nov. 9. Tanner Glass has been busy of late.
12/8 at Toronto- Colton Orr always wants to get down. He and Fraser McLaren are among the toughest teammates in the NHL.
12/10 at Calgary- Ex Bruin Brian McGrattan has been tearing up the league. Undefeated in 5 fights including huge wins over Barch and McLaren. 
 

MoGator71

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,117
Something else to think about...the Bruins have been playing well, and the general feeling is that you don't really want to drop the gloves, from a team standpoint, if you're winning. You're up a couple goals, your opponent's down, and their tough guy wants to boost the energy level so he goes looking for a fight. Thornton's a smart enough guy to know when not to fight. Not saying that's the case, since I've seen all of about 5 B's games this year, but that's a good reason to politely decline a fight.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,535
right here
I think the conversation in tonight's Behind the B where Claude basically told him to not fight should pretty much put this to rest, eh?
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,694
The Dirty Shire
The Napkin said:
I think the conversation in tonight's Behind the B where Claude basically told him to not fight should pretty much put this to rest, eh?
 
Yep. 
 
"No, you can't fight... Tell him coach said 'no'... how many times has that happened to you? a bunch right? Just tell them coach says no"
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,191
SpacemanzGerbil said:
 At least it was something. I'm not completely out of my mind.
Well let's not get too hasty here. 
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,191
My mom would prefer to have the proceedings with TSOYRRA over as fast as possible. She claims he's all awkward and grunty. 
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
After last night's game, whatever is going on with Shawn is likely to happen away from the playing surface. He's definitely looking at a suspension...
 
As ThreatLevelMidnight points out above, Toronto is a tough team, and Calgary can be, too. Here's hoping the Bs have a better response to the Orrs/MacLarens/McGrattons than Looch and Z.
 
Is it Bobby Robbins time?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I'm surprised we don't have a thread on this. Any idea how long Thornton's suspension will be? Will they announce something imminently, or wait until there's a timetable for Orpik's return?

Neal only got five games for his hit on Marchand, which was nearly as malicious as what Thornton did. Unfortunately, for the Bruins, the NHL doesn't give malice much weight -- Marchand wasn't hurt, Orpik was, and consequently Thornton will hit the pine for much longer than Neal.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Thornton will probably end up with 10.  He's never had discipline (or even a hearing) before in his career, that will work for him, and maybe if Orpik had been able to get up, he would have only gotten a slap on the wrist.  Even if he had merely knocked him out with the slewfoot and falling on him, then probably 3-5.  But hitting him again after he was out is dangerous and malicious, and I'm sure he regrets it, but he's going to do the time.  As well, even though it is still largely codified by the players, the league itself is trying to shed this wild west image of on ice enforcement.  If Thornton had a history of stuff like this, he'd be seeing 20 easily.
 
I'd also guess his teammates will pitch in to cover some of his missing salary, even though we won't hear about it.  As I've said elsewhere, the Penguins were basically broadcasting that they thought they could do anything they wanted to the Bruins and the refs were saying "please do" and Thornton tried to go about it the "right way" first and got penalized for it, and the Penguins got a goal for it.  So basically the league, through its rules and endorsement of the refs, was saying "not only can you take runs at Bruins players, but we will reward you when they try to retaliate."  And finally Thornton lost his shit.  But you can't lose your shit, and he will be penalized appropriately.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
smastroyin said:
.  So basically the league, through its rules and endorsement of the refs, was saying "not only can you take runs at Bruins players, but we will reward you when they try to retaliate."  
 
I admit I'm mostly a casual observer until late in the season, but what is this coming from?
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
They had an opportunity to call something on the original orpik hit, just to say "OK guys knock it off we aren't going to let this go."

Later, when Thornton went out and tried to get orpik to fight he refused, and Thornton ended up with a penalty, and on the resulting power play, the penguins scored.

Thornton could have started a fight, but the league is committed to the instigator penalty, so he didn't.

It doesn't excuse Thornton's actions, but it explains them.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
6,196
Dummy Hoy said:
I think Justin Bourne, as he regularly does, has one of the best takes on this incident.
That's a great read, and sums up my opinion very well.  I think 8 for Neal and 12 for Thornton would have been very fair. 
 
He also articulates my feelings on tying suspensions to injuries much better than I've been able to.  Getting hurt on a play has an incredible degree of randomness to it.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
6,196
No.  Players are suspended indefinitely when informed that they'll have an in-person hearing.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,579
South Boston
Haunted said:
That's a great read, and sums up my opinion very well.  I think 8 for Neal and 12 for Thornton would have been very fair.
Likewise.
 

Reardon's Beard

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2005
3,795
I guess I'm in a distinct minority that just wants to see Pittsburgh, Vancouver, and Montreal razed to the ground.
 
Play hard and send a message to the league you can't take cheap shots at the Boston Bruins. If you want to fight and man up then do it, otherwise play the game of hockey and don't pick fights you aren't willing to finish.
 
Thornton should have just punched him out, to his face, without the slew foot and coming up from behind. While breaking rules and ruffling all sorts of feathers, it would have been a direct and to the point matter-of-fact answer to the bullshit...and I think strangely enough would helped his case with the office if it even got that far. I don't have a problem with Shawn Thornton standing up for his teammates and knocking someone out who caused physical harm to a member of the family. In fact he tried to do exactly that within the rules of the game. This is the biggest reason I have a hard time getting mad at Shawn Thornton and his NHLPA 93 justice - he tried to do it through the rules of the game and was rebuffed, penalized, and it cost this team on the board and worse - his own guys were hurt.
 
Curious to hear more comments on the backstory mentioned above. Has the league really been going after Boston and letting opposition get away with things we couldn't see? Has this been going on all year? Are they taking tips from NFL officials that call the Pats games?
 
In the meantime we need to continue the arms race for the stretch run. Someone who can fight, skate, and play team defense. I do not want to see Lucic or Z break a hand laying down the law when necessary - that's my biggest concern right now as those are two guys who won't roll over and we need their skills on the ice.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
Well, the rules of the game call for 5 minutes for fighting.  And that's what Thornton got the first time he tried to engage Orpik the first time.
 
The meme that the league is targeting the Bruins really needs something tangible and credible with regards to evidence; so far, I've yet to see that, and until we do, I'm not sure it's a point even worth discussing.  The NHL will look at Thornton's actions in isolation:  punching a guy after he's already down and likely concussed will get punished, and rightly so. I don't see how the NHL could look at it any differently.  
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I'm not saying the league is going after Boston.  Don't call it a fucking meme.  I hate when people do this.  I mentioned specifically what may have been going through Shawn Thornton's mind (and perhaps the minds of his teammates).  Orpik choosing to run Eriksson is bush - the guy just came back from a concussion and now you gave him another one.  Traditionally hockey has been policed for instances like this on-ice - Orpik refused to take his punishment when Thornton came after him, and it fed into the later sequence, where Orpik is getting involved in a scrum protecting James Neal after Neal's own piece of shit play.   "Old school" NHL guys have been saying this all week about the incident and why it happened.  It doesn't excuse Thornton's actions, but it gives some insight as to why a guy who has gone his entire career without missing a game to a suspension would lose his shit. 
 

ajml

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
441
I really don't think the league is targeting the Bruins. The Bruins play and have a reputation for playing physical so they will be in more positions for things to escalate than a team that doesn't play that style.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,579
South Boston
No one is saying that the league is letting other teams do something because they're targeting the Bruins. I think Smas is talking about just the events of the game. The league is a fucking joke at consistently calling penalties at all, but especially hits to the head.

In the two games against the Penguins and the Leafs, there were three bad hits to the head that led to a grand total of two minutes in penalties. And even the Neal call was delayed a bit until Marchand didn't get up.

When the league isn't protecting your teammates' health, or deterring the behavior in te first place, you have to do something about it. Thornton should have done something different, but once players stop trying to hit each other in the head with impunity, we'll eliminate those incidents.

All you have to do is watch the Penguins/Flyers series from a few years ago and how little discipline was dished out to see why maggots like Neal act as they do.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
smastroyin said:
I'm not saying the league is going after Boston.  Don't call it a fucking meme.  I hate when people do this.  I mentioned specifically what may have been going through Shawn Thornton's mind (and perhaps the minds of his teammates).   
 
Maybe I misread you, but i didn't see where you said that you thought Thornton was thinking this:
 


  So basically the league, through its rules and endorsement of the refs, was saying "not only can you take runs at Bruins players, but we will reward you when they try to retaliate."
 
Thanks for clarifiying--I really thought I had missed something.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,905
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
I don't have a problem with Shawn Thornton standing up for his teammates and knocking someone out who caused physical harm to a member of the family. In fact he tried to do exactly that within the rules of the game. This is the biggest reason I have a hard time getting mad at Shawn Thornton and his NHLPA 93 justice - he tried to do it through the rules of the game and was rebuffed, penalized, and it cost this team on the board and worse - his own guys were hurt.
Allowing myself a moment to advocate for Satan, I'm not sure this philosophy works where the check that started it was deemed within the rules. If the rulebook, as opposed to unwritten codes which are inherently subject to vastly different interpretations, doesn't play the largest part in determining what is permissible and what is not, then there will be problems. I have a problem with the sort of check Orpik laid on Eriksson, because the NHL allows them although it said it was serious about protecting vulnerable players. Thornton wanted to Orpik to answer because the check. But the reason Thornton wanted a piece of Orpik is beside the point.

At the end of the day, this was a freak outcome. Thornton wanted to fight Orpik and if they had squared up and Orpik turtled, Thornton's punishment would have been clear and is already spelled out in the rulebook (2, 5, 10, and a game). So in that respect, I think I'll be peeved if the NHL does anything other than talk about it. (I wouldn't cry if the automatic game misconduct went away and was instead a discretionary addition for the refs.) I'm rambling now, and sorry if my snip changed the context of your post in any way, ReardonsBeard.

Edit: reading again, I think we're saying much of the same thing. My view is focused on the presumption that Orpik was in the wrong in the eyes of the rulebook. Shawn being right in the eyes of The Code doesn't win him style points with the head office. Mostly, bad luck for Thornton is driving this.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Right, that is more of an abstract thought.  "Our guys are getting murdered, the refs aren't doing anything about it, and I can't do anything about it within the rules, and these guys are going to keep doing their shit until something is done."  As opposed to the league saying "ok refs, since it's the Bruins, you should let shit go"  Sorry that I was unclear.
 
As Myt1 implies, I don't think this is specific to the Bruins, other than Shawn Thornton plays for the Bruins, and therefore the circumstances that led to the incident were Bruins specific.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Fred in Lynn said:
Allowing myself a moment to advocate for Satan, I'm not sure this philosophy works where the check that started it was deemed within the rules. If the rulebook, as opposed to unwritten codes which are inherently subject to vastly different interpretations, doesn't play the largest part in determining what is permissible and what is not, then there will be problems. I have a problem with the sort of check Orpik laid on Eriksson, because the NHL allows them although it said it was serious about protecting vulnerable players. Thornton wanted to Orpik to answer because the check. But the reason Thornton wanted a piece of Orpik is beside the point.

At the end of the day, this was a freak outcome. Thornton wanted to fight Orpik and if they had squared up and Orpik turtled, Thornton's punishment would have been clear and is already spelled out in the rulebook (2, 5, 10, and a game). So in that respect, I think I'll be peeved if the NHL does anything other than talk about it. (I wouldn't cry if the automatic game misconduct went away and was instead a discretionary addition for the refs.) I'm rambling now, and sorry if my snip changed the context of your post in any way, ReardonsBeard.
 
Just to be clear, the NHL may allow checks like Orpiks, but the refs have enough leeway that they could have called an interference there (yes, it was a bad bounce that kept the puck away from Eriksson, but technically he didn't have it and they could have called the penalty) and at least establish that they weren't going to allow the game to become a series of cheap shots.  If you don't want the players policing this stuff, then you have to suck it up and do it yourself. 
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
With the national attention this has received, I'll be surprised if Thornton gets less than 20 games. If he had a record of disciplinary action, he'd be looking at much worse.
 
Not saying that's fair, but that's how I see it unfolding.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,905
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
 
Just to be clear, the NHL may allow checks like Orpiks, but the refs have enough leeway that they could have called an interference there (yes, it was a bad bounce that kept the puck away from Eriksson, but technically he didn't have it and they could have called the penalty) and at least establish that they weren't going to allow the game to become a series of cheap shots.  If you don't want the players policing this stuff, then you have to suck it up and do it yourself. 

In hindsight, their decision to consider that check legal triggered what followed. No doubt, and it could have gone the other way. Buddying up with Satan again, the Bs wouldn't have liked it the roles were reversed. It's a tough call. Really, the weakness lies with the NHL: they have implemented rules to protect vulnerable players at many turns but left open that kind of hit.
 

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
12,280
Between here and everywhere.
maufman said:
With the national attention this has received, I'll be surprised if Thornton gets less than 20 games. If he had a record of disciplinary action, he'd be looking at much worse.
 
Not saying that's fair, but that's how I see it unfolding.
 
By the time the hearing takes place (Friday), most of the "national attention" will have dwindled down to TSN, HFboards, Sons of Chris Dahlquist, and RedRocketeer. 
 
I think Thornton's clean history, reputation in the league, and mitigating factors really make this 10-12 games max.