Pens' Laraque returns with physical presence
Criticized during the Penguins' opening-round playoff loss to Ottawa for not providing a physical presence, right wing Georges Laraque was exactly that last night. Nearly six minutes into the game, Laraque engaged Canadiens defenseman Andrew Archer in a fight and promptly floored him with a series of punches that left Archer bloodied. Archer left the game with what the Canadiens termed a facial injury. He was taken to a local hospital for X-rays.
Angelo Esposito, the Penguins' first-round pick (20th overall) in the 2007 entry draft, was a popular interview request following a morning practice session. Esposito is a Montreal native, and the Canadiens have absorbed some criticism for not taking him with the 12th overall pick in the draft.
"It worked out really well for me," Esposito said of falling to the Penguins. "I'm with a great organization."
Esposito said he was somewhat taken aback upon hitting the ice in the Bell Center for a morning practice.
"I just looked around and took it (in)," Esposito said. "I have always wanted to play here ... but I did not know who I was going to play for. Now, here I am with the Penguins. It is a good fit."
Center Keven Veilleux, the Penguins' second-round pick (51st overall) in the 2007 entry draft, attended the exhibition game. Veilleux, a Quebec native, lives not far from Montreal. He has not participated in camp while recovering from sports hernia surgery.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.