This thing is like goddamn Fight Club, only weirder and less fun.
Instead of directly acknowledging the existence of Dry Island (though he did admit it in a very convoluted way) and saying that it was implemented to keep some of the younger guys in line (a reasonable crusade), Lavs told Missanelli that it was meant to cover all manner of drinking:
"Everything right now is being referred to in a partying type mode and that wasn't the case at all, either. It was a casual glass of wine with dinner, and I asked that person to give up that casual glass, as well. And some did and some didn't.
Whether you were having three glasses of wine, or one beer, my point was any alcohol that got taken out of play in that stretch run, while we were trying to push to get back into the playoffs, could have helped the team in any way.
I'm going to not comment on who did and who didn't. And just leave it that as a team, we did the best we did to get our team in position for the playoffs.
If someone went home and had a casual glass of wine with dinner, a player 34-years-old and his wife's cooking dinner and he had a glass of wine and then maybe another half a glass or whatever, my thought was, if that wine were removed, because of our situation it would be better for our team."
That is fucking ridiculous.
This means if Chris Pronger went home and decided to have a glass of merlot before making sexual with Lauren, he would have been violating the statutes of Dry Island. Makes sense.
Lavs then challenged the report by championing the accomplishments of the two cornerstone players the team just traded away.
"The way [Jeff] came back from two broken feet was nothing short of miraculous for me as a coach… He came back, he did everything he could with two broken feet to come back and help us play."
"And I think Mike's play speaks for itself."
So then why trade him?
Because the partying most likely did play a part. That's why.
Lavs should have just stayed off the radio. The goals of Dry Island were noble. There's no reason to hide it. But the request it carried with it is absurd. If you're 34-years-old and your boss asks you to not have wine with dinner, punch him in the face. On the spot. You have my permission.
Then things just got nutty:
"I can't comment on [people seeing them out] because I don't know that's true. That's speculation. Do you have the names of the people who saw these guys out?"
Really? Really? Just stop. You're better than this, Peter.
You can listen to the whole slithery, I did my homework but I forgot it at home then I slipped in a puddle interview right here.