Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Anson Carter says race played a factor in Canucks contract negotiations

Rate this topic


Violator

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, kilgore said:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/wholl-be-linemate-for-sedins/article18173284/

 

We don't disagree much about Carter.  I was only taking his word for what he was offered. Hard to get a clear number. This G & M article at the time said the Canucks offered him $3.6  over two years. Which seems still a bit cheap considering he was the team leader in goals the previous season with a career high 33, but not too bad considering it was a two year deal. Still you think they could have offered him at least 4 for 2.  But I agree that it was not about race.  They thought the Sedins could just pass it to Bulis for cheaper.

Still a 55 point player. Same reason Burrows was paid less - he had the goals but lacked the assists to elevate to star status. Daniel got $3.575m but was over 70 points and considerably younger and improving. But the one I recall seeing was a $2m one year offer. Perhaps they tried both offers. I suspect the reason Nonis simply moved on is what Carter wanted and what they offered was just too far apart and they were up against the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Baggins said:

No, the author was saying they lost Larionov over $150k because Larionov himself didn't want the Russian Fed to get any more money. Which had nothing to do with Canucks management. The Canucks hands were tied by the original contract and they got the amount reduced so they could make Larionov an offer. The rest is just your own spin and unfounded assumptions. Teams do move on with players. The rest of Larionov's career is hindsight. As it is with any GM that let's a player walk.

 

But as you like to make assumptions how about this: Perhaps with Krutov being fat and lazy, Bure wanting his contract renegotiated, and Larionov walking over $150k (that he didn't even have to pay) they simply decided Russians were to unpredictable and temperamental. And at his age, it was better to just walk away. There's no actual indication of that either. But I can assume what they were thinking too, so that's the real reason why. You're just letting your own bias towards management shine here. Twisting what actually happened to paint them as evil slave masters.

Not "slave masters"  just unwilling to cut them any slack or attempting to understand where they were coming from.  It seems pretty odd that Larionov would be so mad about something that cost him nothing. Enough that he would leave the NHL just to end it for good on his own. I don't buy that.  That book I quoted from, 100 Things Canuck Fans should Know and Do Before they Die, by Mike Halford, Thomas Drance, and John Garrett, also says that after the $150,000 was agreed on,  "“Larionov was obstinate. Unwilling to pay a cent of his earnings to Russian hockey interests.”  That implied whatever was settled would still come out of his contract. That has never been clear.

And why did they not re-sign him after only one year away? It was either they held a petty grudge, and old boys club style, wanted to show him he can't disobey them, or they were terrible judges of hockey talent. Which was it? His production was increasing each season with us. Either one of those reasons does not look good on them considering how his career kept rising after. I still wonder to this day if he may have been that one more piece of the puzzle to have put us over the top in 94.

 

I admit that Russian born players may be more of a handful. But I contend that is because of the culture they were immersed in growing up. A Russian may never truly trust or respect any authority figure, including his own hockey club employers. One either thinks its worth that price to be extra patient and accommodating to players from there,.... or one thinks there is no room for that kind favouritism or deference and every player, no matter where they come from, must be able to fall in lock step with any NA born player, who are more socially conditioned to know in our culture when to fight and when to suck up. 

 

Personally I think its worth it to have some allowances towards some players if that is the way to build the best team possible. To win a Cup. Which is all I care about as a fan. The Bulls needed Rodman too. Which is why I'm worried about Tryamkin. Jim is old school, and some are already questioning why Jim has not signed Nikita yet. He's been available for a month now or so. He'd not take much off the cap. I love Stecher but I'd take the Tram any day. I hope we're not going to make the same mistake all over again. Maybe you've already put him in the too-much-trouble Russian category.

I could easily say you are also are letting your own biases "shine". You also are assuming things. But I'll concede to say the truth may be somewhere in between. cheers.

Edited by kilgore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Not "slave masters"  just unwilling to cut them any slack or attempting to understand where they were coming from.  It seems pretty odd that Larionov would be so mad about something that cost him nothing.  I don't buy that.  That book I quoted from, 100 Things Canuck Fans should Know and Do Before they Die, by Mike Halford, Thomas Drance, and John Garrett, also says that after the $150,000 was agreed on,  "“Larionov was obstinate. Unwilling to pay a cent of his earnings to Russian hockey interests.”  That implied whatever was settled would still come out of his contract. That has never been clear.

And why did they not re-sign him after only one year away? It was either they held a petty grudge, and old boys club style, wanted to show him he can't disobey them, or they were terrible judges of hockey talent. Which was it? His production was increasing each season with us. Either one of those reasons does not look good on them considering how his career kept rising after. I still wonder to this day if he may have been that one more piece of the puzzle to have put us over the top in 94.

 

I admit that Russian born players may be more of a handful. But I contend that is because of the culture they were immersed in growing up. A Russian may never truly trust or respect any authority figure, including his own hockey club employers. One either thinks its worth that price to be extra patient and accommodating to players from there,.... or one thinks there is no room for that kind favouritism or deference and every player, no matter where they come from, must be able to fall in lock step with any NA born player, who are more socially conditioned to know in our culture when to fight and when to suck up. 

 

Personally I think its worth it to have some allowances towards some players if that is the way to build the best team possible. To win a Cup. Which is all I care about as a fan. The Bulls needed Rodman too. Which is why I'm worried about Tryamkin. Jim is old school, and some are already questioning why Jim has not signed Nikita yet. He's been available for a month now or so. He'd not take much off the cap. I love Stecher but I'd take the Tram any day. I hope we're not going to make the same mistake all over again. Maybe you've already put him in the too-much-trouble Russian category.

I could easily say you are also are letting your own biases "shine". You also are assuming things. But I'll concede to say the truth may be somewhere in between. cheers.

That could very well mean, he doesn't want them to see ANY money being paid to the Federation, like he is their slave and making money off of them

 

As far as not signing Tree yet, one reason could be that if you are presently working out trading some players, you don't want to make yourself look even more desperate by having to unload players and get even less in the trade would be one of my guesses

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

That could very well mean, he doesn't want them to see ANY money being paid to the Federation, like he is their slave and making money off of them

 

As far as not signing Tree yet, one reason could be that if you are presently working out trading some players, you don't want to make yourself look even more desperate by having to unload players and get even less in the trade would be one of my guesses

Yes, that is exactly what the Professor said, that after being essentially a slave to them for years, he did not want the Federation making another dime off him. 

 

As far as not signing Tram goes, since the March shutdown the number of NHL players who have been signed to contracts for more than $1M/year you could count on your fingers, and I don't think you would even need both hands.

 

Nobody is making any significant commitments until they know the cap situation.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if race was an issue... but it was definitely poor GM'ing.  
Anson Carter was a legit top-6... but one of those "middle class" players that got squeezed due to the implementation of the salary cap the year prior.  Much like why Manny Malhotra signed a 1 million/1 year deal with the Sharks the year prior with the Canucks... or when Brendan Morrison took a 1.5 million/1 year contract with Washington right after getting paid $3 million previously.  

 

IIRC, Carter was asking for at least a 3 year contract or something.... but Nonis didn't want that.  But instead... he went out to trade for Taylor Pyatt (700k, extended to 1.5) plus signing of Jan Bulis for like 1.2 million or something.  Pretty much if you combined both numbers, it would have been in line with what Carter wanted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, kilgore said:

Not "slave masters"  just unwilling to cut them any slack or attempting to understand where they were coming from.  It seems pretty odd that Larionov would be so mad about something that cost him nothing. Enough that he would leave the NHL just to end it for good on his own. I don't buy that.  That book I quoted from, 100 Things Canuck Fans should Know and Do Before they Die, by Mike Halford, Thomas Drance, and John Garrett, also says that after the $150,000 was agreed on,  "“Larionov was obstinate. Unwilling to pay a cent of his earnings to Russian hockey interests.”  That implied whatever was settled would still come out of his contract. That has never been clear.

In his own words: It's not fair Russia gets any more money after already getting more than a million from his first NHL contract. It sounded to me like he was bitter the Russian Fed should profit from his playing elsewhere and simply didn't want them getting any more.

 

17 hours ago, kilgore said:

And why did they not re-sign him after only one year away? It was either they held a petty grudge, and old boys club style, wanted to show him he can't disobey them, or they were terrible judges of hockey talent. Which was it? His production was increasing each season with us. Either one of those reasons does not look good on them considering how his career kept rising after. I still wonder to this day if he may have been that one more piece of the puzzle to have put us over the top in 94..

Pure assumption with no evidence. According to the information you posted Quinn simply decided to move on because of his age. With any GM plans can change over the course of a year. Was it a mistake? You bet. Show me a GM that hasn't made mistakes. But perhaps the length of contract Larionov was seeking influenced Quinn's decision. Who knows?

 

17 hours ago, kilgore said:

I admit that Russian born players may be more of a handful. But I contend that is because of the culture they were immersed in growing up. A Russian may never truly trust or respect any authority figure, including his own hockey club employers. One either thinks its worth that price to be extra patient and accommodating to players from there,.... or one thinks there is no room for that kind favouritism or deference and every player, no matter where they come from, must be able to fall in lock step with any NA born player, who are more socially conditioned to know in our culture when to fight and when to suck up. 

Teams always seem to at try to accommodate and help with any international players adjustment, particularly Russians. But should their patience and tolerance be unlimited? Look at Ottawa and Yashin. They repeatedly renegotiated his contract at his demand but eventually said enough is enough honour your contract. Eventually even taking Yashin to court over it and winning. There's always two sides to a story and unlike the Yashin situation we're not always privy to all the details.

 

17 hours ago, kilgore said:

Personally I think its worth it to have some allowances towards some players if that is the way to build the best team possible. To win a Cup. Which is all I care about as a fan. The Bulls needed Rodman too. Which is why I'm worried about Tryamkin. Jim is old school, and some are already questioning why Jim has not signed Nikita yet. He's been available for a month now or so. He'd not take much off the cap. I love Stecher but I'd take the Tram any day. I hope we're not going to make the same mistake all over again. Maybe you've already put him in the too-much-trouble Russian category.

Of course it's worth allowances - within reason. But there will always be a line where it becomes too much and/or unfair to others on the team. There is a point it falls into the prima donna zone of not worth it like Yashin. Look at how angry fans got about Tryamkin being sat out to start and his subsequent departure. Neither was a cultural issue. He wasn't happy he was sat for showing up in poor shape. The team worked with him and Benning even praised him for his effort. When finally he made the line up he wasn't happy he wasn't getting 20 minutes or more per game. Both played a part in his departure and both fall into the prima donna zone. Is he above the expectations of everybody else on the team because he's Russian? Even Hughes started out with low minutes and had to earn his 20+ minutes per game. I never heard him whine about it. I side wholeheartedly with management on that. I'll even go as far as saying if he demands averaging 20 minutes per game be in his contract let him walk.

 

I'm not sure what Tryamkin unsigned has to do with this anyway. Hockey is currently shutdown and they're looking to complete the season. I believe Tryamkin wouldn't qualify to play until the following season. Who's to say they haven't been negotiating anyway. I don't fret over such things.

 

17 hours ago, kilgore said:

I could easily say you are also are letting your own biases "shine". You also are assuming things. But I'll concede to say the truth may be somewhere in between. cheers.

Possibly. But I do always try to look with a neutral eye. Which is why I've argued a Canuck deserved a suspension and an opposing player didn't many times (and much to the chagrin of Deb :lol:). I'm simply not a one side good one side bad kind of guy. Nor do I assume because one bad choice or action did occur that everything thereafter must be bad. Rather than making bold assumptions I do try to look with logic applicable to individual situations where all of the facts are unavailable. This isn't the first example you've gone off topic in this thread to bash Canucks management, mostly with opinions and assumptions lacking evidence, when the only manager involved in the topic is Nonis. And in the Larionov case twisting what was actually said in the article to paint management to fit your view. Thus my believing there's bias is a logical conclusion.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Baggins said:

.......

 

Possibly. But I do always try to look with a neutral eye. Which is why I've argued a Canuck deserved a suspension and an opposing player didn't many times (and much to the chagrin of Deb :lol:). I'm simply not a one side good one side bad kind of guy. Nor do I assume because one bad choice or action did occur that everything thereafter must be bad. Rather than making bold assumptions I do try to look with logic applicable to individual situations where all of the facts are unavailable. This isn't the first example you've gone off topic in this thread to bash Canucks management, mostly with opinions and assumptions lacking evidence, when the only manager involved in the topic is Nonis. And in the Larionov case twisting what was actually said in the article to paint management to fit your view. Thus my believing there's bias is a logical conclusion.

“Larionov was obstinate. Unwilling to pay a cent of his earnings to Russian hockey interests.”

 

To me, that implies the Canucks management had made clear it would be coming out of any future contract. And then there's that pesky "obstinate" Russian attitude they couldn't abide by. But that is an assumption, based on that quote. I at least admit assumptions.

 

Your arguments are chalk full of assumptions the other way, and also lacking evidence. It is in fact, the only thing we can do based on the scant reports we can glean out of these past events.  You pull out Yashin's name time and time again to make your point about, what?...Russians = bad?   What about Larionov himself?  He is regarded very highly around the league not only as a player who earned his contracts, but as a good ambassador for the game in Russia. Many other "good" Russians including some Russian captain who won a Cup two seasons ago.

 

Just like, to get back to the topic at hand, I make assumptions, based on looking at all the past behaviour of the team etc,, that the decision to let Carter go was not based on racism. Some on here are adamantly assuming it WAS a racist decision.  We all make assumptions. Which is why I tried to throw you a bone to say the truth may be somewhere in between our points of view. Why not just leave it there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

“Larionov was obstinate. Unwilling to pay a cent of his earnings to Russian hockey interests.”

 

To me, that implies the Canucks management had made clear it would be coming out of any future contract. And then there's that pesky "obstinate" Russian attitude they couldn't abide by. But that is an assumption, based on that quote. I at least admit assumptions.

 

Your arguments are chalk full of assumptions the other way, and also lacking evidence. It is in fact, the only thing we can do based on the scant reports we can glean out of these past events.  You pull out Yashin's name time and time again to make your point about, what?...Russians = bad?   What about Larionov himself?  He is regarded very highly around the league not only as a player who earned his contracts, but as a good ambassador for the game in Russia. Many other "good" Russians including some Russian captain who won a Cup two seasons ago.

 

Just like, to get back to the topic at hand, I make assumptions, based on looking at all the past behaviour of the team etc,, that the decision to let Carter go was not based on racism. Some on here are adamantly assuming it WAS a racist decision.  We all make assumptions. Which is why I tried to throw you a bone to say the truth may be somewhere in between our points of view. Why not just leave it there?

Very likely a misquote . The team was on the hook for transfer payment, not the player. Plus the in original story you quoted there's no mention of him having to pay, only that he didn't want the fed to get any money even though the Canucks had agreed to pay it. Logic.

 

And I refute your assumptions as they just don't make sense. The team moved on when he chose to leave. Chose to leave it that way when he was available again. Once again, perhaps they simply didn't like the length of contract his agent was seeking considering his age. Who knows? I'm certainly not going to assume evil intent. What Larionov did afterwards is nothing more than hindsight. Nobody could say with absolute certainty he still had a good ten years in him at that time. Decisions are always made in that moment. In hindsight Quinn made a mistake. All GM's do and it doesn't automatically translate to evil agenda's.

 

You did agree on the racist part but still complained Nonis was cheap and stupid for passing. Logic refutes that. You ignore they were up against the cap and let Jovo walk without even an offer made. Simple logic tells me they didn't offer Carter only $1.1m because they signed a lesser goal scorer at $1.3 (with unproven Sedin chemistry) with Carter still available. Logically they would have offered at least that if not more. Only an idiot would do what Carter claims. Further simple logic tells me the fact Carter sat all summer waiting for a contract after a 33 goal season is pretty clear indicator he and/or his agent overvalued his perceived worth. Just another reason for Nonis to turn up his nose even ignoring their cap issue.

 

Assumptions are made. But I look for the logical answers where I can.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

Assumptions are made. But I look for the logical answers where I can.

I'm sure you do Baggins, I'm sure you do.

But maybe take off the One Ring to Rule the All, Bilbo. You are assuming everything is done because of logic.  Was Trevor losing his job "logic"? Or a difference in opinion between two individuals as to what was logical for the team. Do owners and GMs never make wrong decisions, or decisions based on personal grudges?

As you said, "Who knows?"

I'm done with this discussion.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kilgore said:

I'm sure you do Baggins, I'm sure you do.

But maybe take off the One Ring to Rule the All, Bilbo. You are assuming everything is done because of logic.  Was Trevor losing his job "logic"? Or a difference in opinion between two individuals as to what was logical for the team. Do owners and GMs never make wrong decisions, or decisions based on personal grudges?

As you said, "Who knows?"

I'm done with this discussion.

 

 

 

I believe I said all GM's make mistakes. But even if they decided to pass on Larionov because of his stubbornness is that actually a grudge or simply deciding the juice isn't worth the squeeze? As I said, GM's make allowances, but there are limits to every GM's patience. The logical answer to the Linden situation is differing visions moving forward and the owner preferred Benning's version.

 

Let's move on. I have a ring to destroy.....

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2020 at 11:29 PM, Daywalker said:

As a black hockey player growing up in Toronto, playing college in Michigan, and playing in the NHL in the 90s and 2000s, I'm sure the guy endured an enormous amount of racism throughout his hockey career.  Enough that gives him the right to second guess a lot of the events that happened in his career.  

 

Sure he had up and down years, but he was a beauty on the ice, always seemed to work his bag off, and always seemed super positive in interviews. I don't blame him for wondering why, as a very valuable hockey player, he had to play for 9 different teams during a 10 year career. Did the Canucks make the right decision on him? Yes. Is it weird and questionable as to why the dude had to move around so much during his career? Very much yes.

 

Sure, disagree with him, but he has the right to question and think anything he wants about what happened in his career. Even if you think he's wrong about Vancouver don't miss the point of the rest of what he has to say.

 

 

 

 

I was a big fan of the triplets, a few things i haven't seen mentioned have not been posted.

 

When a player that's capable of putting up numerous 60ish point seasons bounces around the league so much like Anson did does that not proof that there may be other issues going on ?

 

I also liked that carter was very, very hard to move infront of the net.

 

The issues with his play were

 

1) He was not very fast or strong of a skater.

(Sedins need a strong skater for the cycle/positioning game)

 

2) I remember he avoided contact more then the twins did.

 

3) If he was having a bad game or the team was losing he would "give up" on plays/ fore checking / back checking, sorta try just so it looked like he was competing

 

I also remember Anson spoke about getting paid so he can start his life long dream of owning a record label, Not being in the NHL making millions.

 

IIRC the canucks had approximately 3ish mill in cap space and offered 2x2.5 and he refused and spoke in the media of it being under whelming.

 

Fans were upset about losing Jovo, Ruutu and Carter. 

 

Then Canucks fans laughed when he signed a 1x 2.5 in COLUMBUS who were terrible.

 

36/37 year old Sergei Fedorov outscored anson carter as teammates.

 

rumour had it ansons struggles were due to the off ice stress of starting his record label and not having adequate time to train properly. 

 

On 6/11/2020 at 6:19 AM, TheRealistOptimist said:

As a kid I called him "Stone hands" that year because I feel even though he scored 33 goals he missed so many other opportunities, he should've had like 50 goals that year, the Sedin's set him up on a tee so many times from what I recall. I did like him though and remember thinking he was greedy for not re-signing.

 

As for his statement, I think you really have to parse what he said. He didn't say the Canucks were racist for not signing him. He did say he thinks race played a part in him not getting offered more by the Canucks. 

When it comes to that statement, I am not sure but I think I can see where he is coming from. I am sure he probably feels his season was viewed more as a "fluke" because of his skin colour, whereas a white player may have got a big contract. I mean he had been a consistent player putting up 40+ points in 7 of the past 8 seasons, including 55+ points in 3 of the past 4 seasons. Now it was a weird time because of the NHL Lockout and implementation of the salary cap and the 24% salary rollback that came with that. 

Just as an example, Louis Eriksson had 0.65 ppg over his past 4 seasons heading into Free Agency and was almost 31 years old, he was viewed as one of the top FA and as we all know signed a $6 million per year deal. Well Carter also averaged 0.65 ppg over his past 4 seasons heading into FA, now he was slightly older having just turned 32. 

With all that I can understand why he might feel a certain way. Now he got a decent deal AAV wise but probably a little less than a UFA in his position normally get and also nowhere close to the long term deal most would get. This proved to be a smart move by all teams by not giving him any term but it's definitely a bit unusual in regards to how most teams operate during Free Agency.


Anyways this is just a different way of looking at and understanding his statement. Overall in my opinion not a racist move by the Canucks though.

 

ps. I missed 11 games with NYR where he scored 5 points. This drops his ppg slightly lower to 0.64 ppg.

When A.C played Vs L.E 

roughly a 10 year age difference 

Similar players but it seems to be different issues 

 

A.c. had health/ age /speed and possibly attitude issues

 

L.e has been relatively healthy, has o.k. speed, doesn't seem to be an issue personality wise. It's like l.e. hands are 1.5 seconds behind where they need to be.

 

Look at how his teammates treat him, they know hes struggling massively and yet have never said anything other then how much they appreciate his personality on the team. 

 

I'm no l.e. fan but comparing the two ppg or contracts is incorrect. 

 

The Salary cap has gone up 40 million since 2006/07.

 

 

 

P.s.

 

I just saw a sportsnet article from june 4th 2020 where carter goes in on iginla and why he was not offered the same luxuries as he.

 

Iginla is my favorite flame ever, his story and the adversity he over came to become a dominant force in the nhl and a HHOF.

 

IGGY was the player I coveted for the twins

(scha-wing)

 

I've lost alot of respect for Carter, he can voice his opinion on racism and thats progress.

 

But do not throw other minorities or other people, teams or cities under the bus for his own failures.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty ridiculous not to call any or all of the teams who chose not to sign him racist, rather choosing to attribute racist motives to the team who did sign him and who allowed him to rejuvenate his career by playing with two budding superstars.

 

Kind of reminds me of some of the posters here who twist themselves into absurd positions in their determination to say stupidly negative things about the Canucks.

 

Like the clown who, when facts and logic are presented which refute his position, states that owners do not use logic, they base their business decisions on personal grudges, then says, "I'm done with this discussion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

Pretty ridiculous not to call any or all of the teams who chose not to sign him racist, rather choosing to attribute racist motives to the team who did sign him and who allowed him to rejuvenate his career by playing with two budding superstars.

 

Kind of reminds me of some of the posters here who twist themselves into absurd positions in their determination to say stupidly negative things about the Canucks.

 

Like the clown who, when facts and logic are presented which refute his position, states that owners do not use logic, they base their business decisions on personal grudges, then says, "I'm done with this discussion."

I agree, I stated this myself earlier

He comes to the team as an unrestricted free agent, going from $2.8 million to a 1 yr $1million,

If he was a steal he could/would have gone to Any NHL team for more had there been interest,

There must have been a reason no other team was signing him for more, than just his age ,he was with 6 teams in 5 years,

The Canucks were responsible for getting him up to $2.5 Million and he finds this a negative on the Canucks, while seeing they had to let Jovo walk too because of a cap .

This looks like a self absorbed man and  insulting to the people fighting racism

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2020 at 11:44 PM, Davathor said:

 

Good old 2020, cant Express an opinion without prefacing something about the BLM rioters

Im a supporter of the movement, I just don't like people who use it as a crutch or a answer to every problem we have. Carter made a gamble and lost, had nothing to do with his race and more to do with his stupidity And I have no idea what your talking about when you put BLM and rioters in the same sentence. Maybe try removing your "Make America Great Again" hat and give your brain some sun, maybe that will help it grow and evolve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2020 at 2:03 AM, GhostsOf1994 said:

I'm no l.e. fan but comparing the two ppg or contracts is incorrect. 

 

The Salary cap has gone up 40 million since 2006/07

You missed the point completely. 

 

Louis Eriksson based on similar stats got a 6 year deal worth around 8% of the total salary cap in 2016-17, meanwhile Anson Carter got a 1 year deal worth 5.5% of the total cap in 2006-07. 

So if your looking at it from Anson Carter's point of view, I can see why he may feel the way he feels. Now, this example is only one year and one player and to be honest I don't really care to do the research on more players who put up similar numbers heading into free agency throughout the years and what deals they ended up with. 

 

I think there are probably many other reasons why he didn't get a multi-year deal worth more than he did and I don't agree with him that race played a factor in his not getting a better contract offer with the Canucks. But I can see why he may be jaded towards the NHL as a whole. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2020 at 10:33 AM, Sbriggs said:

Im a supporter of the movement, I just don't like people who use it as a crutch or a answer to every problem we have. Carter made a gamble and lost, had nothing to do with his race and more to do with his stupidity And I have no idea what your talking about when you put BLM and rioters in the same sentence. Maybe try removing your "Make America Great Again" hat and give your brain some sun, maybe that will help it grow and evolve.

Do some research on what BLM really is, rioters is a polite term, don’t mistake BLM for equality, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dumb Nuck said:

Do some research on what BLM really is, rioters is a polite term, don’t mistake BLM for equality, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

10 hours ago, Dumb Nuck said:

Do some research on what BLM really is, rioters is a polite term, don’t mistake BLM for equality, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Spew your right wing crap somewhere else, I hear the southern US is looking for people like you. Maybe you can save us all and move, you know go somewhere your wanted and fit in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...