Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Daniel Sedin Concussion [Confirmed]


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
195 replies to this topic

#181 nucklehead53

nucklehead53

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 12

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:14 PM

get well daniel,
while Keith gets 5 games, dany suffers
It only takes one hard fought series to make a rivalry

#182 VancouverStyle

VancouverStyle

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 11

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:21 PM

Anyone know how long Daniel is suppose to be out?

Has there been any updates since the hit?

#183 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,258 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:39 PM

Anyone know how long Daniel is suppose to be out?

Has there been any updates since the hit?


None. They won't announce such thing prior to playoffs, which I totally agree with. It's more or less giving less information to the team that can potentially play us.

 

Well, I , I feel very good about this draft, but I, I think, potentially you know were gonna have 3 or 4 NHL players out of this group, ummmm, you know like we are not going to prejudice to were they are from.

 

-Jim Benning June 27, 2015 shortly after the completion of the 2015 NHL Entry draft in Miami Florida.


#184 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,486 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:42 PM

Reasonably fair? Uhuh. Sorry. Nope. ...

Uh, ok then. Feel free to show me how, when compared to other suspensions in the NHL, it was not fair. I'm not asking if you think there should be tougher penalties for head shots and the like that cause injuries, but if it matches the precedent set - particularly the precedent set by Shanahan this year.

Do you seriously expect that Shanahan is just going to get fed up and suddenly throw out a 15-20 game suspension? We don't even know where Daniel is right now, whether he's already back doing light exercise, or still having symptoms, so to say it's the worst thing ever and the world should pay because he could never play again is asinine.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#185 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:33 PM

Shanaban video...



#186 binderdonedat

binderdonedat

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 11

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:43 AM

Uh, ok then. Feel free to show me how, when compared to other suspensions in the NHL, it was not fair. I'm not asking if you think there should be tougher penalties for head shots and the like that cause injuries, but if it matches the precedent set - particularly the precedent set by Shanahan this year.

Do you seriously expect that Shanahan is just going to get fed up and suddenly throw out a 15-20 game suspension? We don't even know where Daniel is right now, whether he's already back doing light exercise, or still having symptoms, so to say it's the worst thing ever and the world should pay because he could never play again is asinine.


"it's the worst thing ever"? "The world should pay"? Yeah, if I actually said any of thse things it most certainly would be asinine. But I didn't, so how about you cease manufacturing phrases out of thin air and stop putting words in my mouth. If your point can't stand on it's own merit you've already chalked up your first giant fail by trying to spuriously exaggerate mine.

In my original post, I both implied and flat out stated the following: where hits like this are concerned (medically speaking) there is a high percentage of probability that extenuating and dire medical circumstances can manifest. In fact the list of potential injuries from this type of hit are long and extremely serious. They range from stage 3 concussions thru to a broken neck, from a boken jaw thru to a fractured skull, added to permanent inner ear damage, PCS, vertebrate trauma leading to paralysis, e.t.c... Any one of these injuries is potentially career ending to a professional athlete even if they are frikin golfers. Thus, the potential ramifications of such malicious action can quickly become prohibitively expensive, both to player and team alike. You following so far?

That being said, whether or not Daniel actually shows injury(s) to such a degree is wholly irrelevant to the very real potential for such injury(s). Even if he picked up and carried on playing with NO injury, the point still stands. The entire argument is that suspensions on flagrant head hits need to take the potential for grave and career ending injury into punitive consideration - exclusive of any actual injury. Why? Because with such things you can't prove the negative. Waiting for an actual career ending injury to occur is too damned late for metting out stiff and appropriate detterents in these cases. The time for such messages and league endorsed detterents was right here and right now, with the hit on our Art Ross winner and top player.

The logical 'precedent' to set in this case was most certainly more than 5 regular season games. Anything else is just evidence of a league too timid, or otherwise swayed to stand by their own noted message. That message, I might add was hammered down to all coaches, players, and refs by the league at the beginning of this year: A brand new disciplinarian, a brand new day, an an absolute 0 tolerance policy for intentional head hits. You do recall hearing something about that, yes?

If you can just refrain from trying to win this argument at all costs and actually involve yourself in critical analysis, just take into consideration the hit itself. Forget everything else, go ahead and look over that hit a few times. Point in fact: it was 100% flagrant, easily a worst case scenario of blatant malicuous prosecution against an opposing player, this season. Since that is plainly the case, your argument of 'precedence' is completely inconsequential, because there IS NO recent precedent available for Shanahan to draw conclusions. This leads to the next point in fact: that hit marks the very first time Shanny had an actual text book case of an intentionally injurious head shot undisputably documented, to such a point that there is literally no room left for plausible deniability from either Keith or the Blackhawks. I'll say it again, it was the textbook definition of a retaliatory head strike, with intent to injure. The video of that hit is nothing short of a smoking gun. It was almost as blatant - in visibly obvious intent - as Bertuzzi's cheap shot on Moore.

So, sorry yet again, but I do not agree with your contention at all. 5 games is a virtual slap on Keith's wrist, and does not penalize the Blackhawks organization appropriately to a single meaningful degree. What does this 5 game suspension accomplish? There has to be something, yes? Plainly it accomplishes in sending a very specific message to league players and teams. Now, any player without previous infractions can use the late season timing to throw cheap, dirty, malicious, retaliatory hits on any top performers, in the singular hope of sending them out of playoff contention via stretchers and MRI's. And at the very same time said offender gets a laughable 5 game slap, a much worse message is being relayed to to the offending team - that they won't see 1 minute of substantive penalties imposed on their team's playoff chances.

I'll add that with this literal avalanche of hard facts coming across Shanny's desk last week, along with the league calling for 0 tolerance on head shots, 5 suspensions is not only unfair, it turns into yet another nasty a$$ joke on us, much like the Rome suspension was in last years finals. A bloody farce. Angle this Keith hit using any logic you'd like, but we got roasted here bigtime. It's one more bunk decision in a long list of bunk decisions that the Canucks have had to live with from this league.

And BTW, speaking of 'precedence', with new and harsher directives supposedly being handed down this year, for all intents and purposes Shanny had the perfect opportunity in front of him for SETTING new precedents, and keeping players a helluva lot safer than this.

#187 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,486 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 27 March 2012 - 10:55 PM

And where did I say that I think they shouldn't penalize more or that Keith's hit wasn't intentional or that there isn't a potential for injury on plays like that? I do love how you completely ignored my point about it being fair when compared to other suspensions this year and that he can't just double/triple/quadruple suspensions without a reason to do so.

All I asked is for you to provide evidence as to why he should have gotten considerably more (saying it clearly should have been 6 games to really hit them hard isn't considerably more, just in case your still confused) based on precedent as far as suspensions in the NHL go, whether you think it's right or not. Instead I got an essay on injury potential, the 'literal avalanche of hard facts' and a scolding me on hyperbole (which was rich after the literal avalanche comment), none of which was what I was talking about to begin with.

If you expected more games considering what has been handed out thus far, you have no one to blame but yourself.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#188 binderdonedat

binderdonedat

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 11

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:40 AM

And where did I say that I think they shouldn't penalize more or that Keith's hit wasn't intentional or that there isn't a potential for injury on plays like that? I do love how you completely ignored my point about it being fair when compared to other suspensions this year and that he can't just double/triple/quadruple suspensions without a reason to do so.


Where did you say it? When you spoke of the suspension being "fair". You then further qualified your assumption based on precedence/past hits as some sort of necessary measuring stick, all of which are mutually exclusive to the Keith hit. The only precendent consideration Shanny has to utilize in decisions like this are an offenders previous record of fines and suspensions. Hits are not analyzed comparitively. Each is judged on it's own axiomatic basis, from presented evidence. And even if that weren't true, this hit is so patently obvious there's simply no NEED to compare it to this season's past suspensions.

You straight up stated "I think 5 games is fair", which pretty much tells anyone reading that you didn't think he should be penalized more. You did qualify that by basing it on previous suspensions though, and I acknowledged as much. However punishments on unique hits can't be judged on past events. So yeah, I didn't ignore your point, I spent 2 frikin paragraphs explaining why it's a non-starter and straw man argument. Precedence on this hit cannot apply, because 1) it is not a vital part of the decision making process in the first place, and 2) there is no comparable precedent hit to qualify as the very gauge by which you so very much want to apply. In fact if there were any precedent call to use comparitively, you'd have to reach into the 'way back machine' to 2004 and look at Bert on Cooke, or perhaps Mcsorley/Brashear in Boston.

All I asked is for you to provide evidence as to why he should have gotten considerably more (saying it clearly should have been 6 games to really hit them hard isn't considerably more, just in case your still confused) based on precedent as far as suspensions in the NHL go, whether you think it's right or not. Instead I got an essay on injury potential, the 'literal avalanche of hard facts' and a scolding me on hyperbole (which was rich after the literal avalanche comment), none of which was what I was talking about to begin with.

If you expected more games considering what has been handed out thus far, you have no one to blame but yourself.


Yep, if anything is clear at this late point in the thread, it's that you're arguing your point from some magical land where what I actually say isn't as important as what you wish I'd said. Of course I don't consider "what has been handed out so far", neither should you. I explained why that is, like 3 times now. I also never mentioned anything about 6 games being adequate, and I'm completely unclear what part of outer space you grabbed that little diddy from. If it were up to me Keith would have been turfed for the entire regular season + at least 1 entire playoff round, with a retroactive reduction in salary to boot. I'd add that if my post doesn't show crystally clear evidence why he should get considerably more games, you need to blink a few times, maybe pinch yourself, and come back down to this earth, where substance and facts have a part to play in discussions like this. That 'essay' on injury potential was authored for the express purpose of providing evidence for why punishments need to be markedly punitive, much more than this one was.

This is a league-wide, systemic problem, one that light sentences only propells and propagates. 5 games is essentially a joke, so we can all expect more dangerous play and injured players to come. That's frikin sad, and it's also more evidence as to why this hit should have been dealt a far more punitive blow. Hell, if you still choose to ignore/manipulate everything else I've said, that alone is reason enough for why 5 games is not any sort of deterrent and thus a punishment bordering on ridiculous. In order to stop things like this from happening in the future (on any player), the league needs to be proactive, not reactive. Precedence doesn't need to be referenced here, it needs to be SET.

It took Cooke Moore being forced to retire, and Brashear getting a stage 3 concussion and turning permanently punch drunk before appropriate punishment was metted out back then. It's 2012 for crying out lud, why should we have to see another career cut short before proper punishment can be assessed on an obvious violation of such magnitude? An elbow thrown at an unsuspecting player is an aggregious assault, no less than Mcsorley's stick was, and Berts punch. Sedin is lucky his career wasn't OVER. It could easily have happened. A cheap shot to the head still needs to be considered reason enough to hand a smack down to the player AND team responsible.

Edited by binderdonedat, 29 March 2012 - 03:29 AM.


#189 endtoend

endtoend

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 12

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:44 AM

Jason Botchford just said everything he has heard points to Daniel starting in game one of the playoffs. He is on team 1040 right now.

Edited by endtoend, 28 March 2012 - 09:44 AM.


#190 FelixPotvin29

FelixPotvin29

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 11

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:49 AM

I think we will make it past 1st round at least without him in the line-up. I would want him at 120% before putting him back in. Don't want him to have another setback and play that game.

#191 suolucidir

suolucidir

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,221 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 05

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:51 AM

Yeah. Word is Daniel is doing well but he and the team are just taking every precaution since there's very little at stake in the standings.
PSN: CloakOfSkill

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

It bugs me when people pull out the gold medal for an example... Luongo only had to outplay Brodeur.


#192 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,486 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 28 March 2012 - 02:42 PM

Where did you say it? When you spoke of the suspension being "fair". You then further qualified your assumption based on precedence/past hits as some sort of necessary measuring stick, all of which are mutually exclusive to the Keith hit. The only precendent consideration Shanny has to utilize in decisions like this are an offenders previous record of fines and suspensions. Hits are not analyzed comparitively. Each is judged on it's own axiomatic basis, from presented evidence. And even if that weren't true, this hit is so patently obvious there's simply no NEED to compare it to this season's past suspensions.
...

Ok, It's obvious now your either trolling or hugely overreacting as to why I think it's fair and comparable, but I'll give it one final shot. I'll even leave out parts that you're mistakingly thinking I'm attributing to you. This is all my opinion, you don't have to agree even though my explanation matches much more closely to what is actual fact of the suspension that was handed out.

You believe it should be more, and I think your points make sense to you, but I don't see anything other than a very small percentage of people agreeing with your logic and the length of suspension you're proposing.

I agree penalties should be stiffer in general, particularly in cases where it's pretty obvious it was an easily avoidable situation (intent to injure is a big part of that, but not all of that). However, I don't agree that this suspension was ever going to get significantly more than what it did - and that's because of previous suspensions, which I feel are able to be used as precendent.

You believe they aren't and all that is comparable is the extreme cases like Bertuzzi and Moore (not sure why you're saying Cooke) and McSorely two-handing Brashear in Vancouver (it wasn't in Boston). I'd counter with a slightly lesser incident in Marchand's lowbridge on Salo earlier this year, which was premeditated, dangerous and with intent to harm. Marchand got five games due to those factors plus his repeat offender status, so for Keith to get the same amount of games for a worse incident that was mitigated by him not having any repeat offender status is a factual example of why I expected a suspension of about this length. The examples of both Doan and Bourque from this year are similar enough to also apply, even if they don't have the same level of intent.

An elbow is still an elbow, you have to start with that when looking at supplementary discipline - in the least that's what I believe Shanahan does. From there, you consider the situation: was it intentional or reactionary, premeditated or spur of the moment, minor contact or major, etc. Then you can look at player history, injury resulting (which I don't agree with; all other things being equal, punishable plays should merit equal punishment, regardless of outcome), etc.

No one will respect a decision made without sufficient explanation. Players and teams already want more explanation on why one hit constituted a suspension yet another didn't. They don't want wildly varying suspension lengths even if it might do more to protect players. Shanahan has to quantify the suspension and it's length using evidence that is at least comparable to other past decisions to give him grounds to do so, or else the NHLPA will grieve them and he won't have any impact anyways.

Could he have made penalties higher? Sure, but he also has to take into account what the NHL, NHLPA, GMs, owners, etc want, and this is what they've settled with. Has he been perfect in his decisions? No, but that doesn't mean they won't increase them if they feel they need to, or even change how suspensions are handed out to drive awareness. Once again that doesn't mean I'd be opposed to it if they did so.

In the end, if it was "crystally clear" that Keith should have gotten considerably more games, the people that pay Shanahan to do his job (and by that I mean the NHL, NHLPA, GMs, owners, etc) would have been as up in arms over the resulting suspension as you seem to be over another person's opinion.

Again, you can believe my points are non-starters and straw man arguments, but that doesn't change what the facts are today. The suspension is still what it is, and you expecting longer and being outraged that it's not speaks more about you than it does me.

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

If this team lets go of Sang he will burn this team next year. 

 


#193 binderdonedat

binderdonedat

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 11

Posted 28 March 2012 - 05:52 PM

.


OK, you've definitely cleared some things up. I'll admit a large part of our disagreement has been based on a few misunderstandings. We're both kinda arguing two separate things really. And yes, you are right in that I am most def outraged by the hit and I'm glad it says a lot about me. My outrage is based on the intent of the hit, the possibillity of what may have happened to Sedin, along with the subsequent failure of Shanahan and the league to see an obvious and glaring chance to make an example out of it for the sake of future player safety. Truth be told I could have cared less the color of jersey that night, I only remember seeing that hit and recalling one of my games long ago, one where a wicked talented kid from New Brunswick had his neck broken by a very similar cheap shot. He spent over a year in traction as a result. At the time, he was being aggressively scouted and groomed for a future in the NHL, yet because of that hit he never played hockey again. So yeah, I admit that this is personal, maybe for that reason.

What you're suggesting to me is that the politics, the climate, and the structure of the league had a part to play, of course you aren't wrong in saying that either. My position is that there are times, certain moments of opportunity when an administrator gets the rare chance to step up and rise above industry politics and just simply do the right thing. This was one case where Shanny had the chance to fix something that has been broken for a while now.

Your examples of past suspensions as precedence - this is where I can't agree, in fact it's where the rule of law disagrees. Intent is everything. When it comes to an intentonal head shot these incidents get separated from the fold and singled out as malicious prosecution. It's a completely different beast when a hit moves from being part of the play to a case of obvious premeditation. In fact that premise was an important part of the legal argument in court which ended up convicting Mcsorley of assault with a weapon.

As you've admitted, with Doane's hit, Bourque's hit on Seabrook, e.t.c... there's wiggle room in every one. Intent cannot be clearly established, not to mention all came as a result of ongoing play. Even the submarine on Salo, while a little more obvious in intent, still leaves wiggle room and plausable deniability due to the close proximity of play - and it wasn't a blatant hit to the head. Keith's elbow was inarguably aimed and was intended to injure. It was nothing other than lined up, malicious prosecution. What I contend is that this hit was gift wrapped for Shanahan, a perfect opportunity to set the bar higher, advance the game, and err on the side of player safety, not on the side of the GM's and their bottom line.

Having said all that, I still can't blame Shanahan for the ruling. Might sound weird, but hear me out. I'd bet dollars to donuts that he tried to get plenty more games and was shouted down from on high. Shanny was a player, as I was, and I don't think there's a hockey player alive who would look at that hit and not cringe at what could easily have happened as it's result. I know I did.

This argument is moot at this point anyway, but it is good to see many sides. I appreciate that at least we're both clear the league has it's head up it's own a$$ when it comes to suspensions and penalties in general.

#194 Karlsson`s Flo

Karlsson`s Flo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,437 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 09

Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:09 PM

Jason Botchford just said everything he has heard points to Daniel starting in game one of the playoffs. He is on team 1040 right now.


Gawd, I hope so.

#195 Brambojoe

Brambojoe

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 07

Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:22 PM

If they want players to make different choices with their elbows they will need harsher penalties. I don't think Keith changes his game one wit due to this. But perhaps I am wrong and as a career NHL'er with a clean suspension history he is due the benefit of the doubt.

#196 canucks3322

canucks3322

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,315 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 11

Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:51 PM

second period intermission MG with Murph said that he expects Daniel and Bieska back in the lineup before playoff starts :P so I'm guessing Daniel will play at least one regular season game at least ( Get well soon Daniel we miss you !!)




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.