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

SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

Members
  • Posts

    9,321
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    8

SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME last won the day on November 18 2018

SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME had the most liked content!

3 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

20,289 profile views

SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME's Achievements

Canucks Star

Canucks Star (13/16)

20.1k

Reputation

  1. I’m probably going to give this group at least 20 games before I start drawing conclusions about either the roster or the coaching staff. This team could look completely different ten games from now, and without any personnel changes. We’ve had a shuffle and additions in the coaching, major changes/turnover on both the defence and forwards, Petey and Hughes extensions running late and with no training camp, Boeser out, plus the whole Hamonic thing. Just to name a few. I’m sure there’s more. Last game was played without what would ostensibly be our first pairing (Hughes-Hamonic), if the roster was actually the way it had been designed. And a start on the road mean very little practice time, or even the opportunity to do serious video work, to address the current issues. They deserve more time.
  2. You should take it up with the man himself, since OEL has admitted that he “struggled the last four years.” Similarly, Daniel Sedin has said that OEL needs to be better than he has the last few years. It’s not just a myth created by media. There are countless other hockey people who’ve said the same things. And very few, if any, people around the NHL who’d claim that OEL hasn’t underperformed, relative the player he was at his peak performance levels, and compared the value expected from a player on his contract. And certainly there’s been ample evidence, both in the advanced stats, and the eye test, that show a decline in his play in recent years. That said, any decline was from a peak level where OEL was probably the best Dman in the entire NHL, at least in 2015-16, and arguably the most valuable player, period, in the league that year. So even a fraction of his peak performance is still very high level. And there were certainly numerous factors that could explain some of his decline in performance. He’s looked very good to start this season. Everything is going about as well as could be expected, and hopefully that continues. The talent and ability that made OEL one of the best of the best, just a few years back, is not something that just disappears completely. And he never stopped being an effective NHLer. He just wasn’t as good as he once was. And he’ll probably never get back to his absolute peak levels. Can he be a top Dman for a few more years? Absolutely. We’ll see how much of a resurgence he enjoys in this new situation and how long he can continue to provide really good value on the ice. So far, he’s looking great. But there’s no way a team, even one as poorly run as the Coyotes, pays another team to take a player like OEL, unless there’s been a clear indication of decline. And make no mistake: the Canucks were paid to take this contract, because the consensus view in the league was that OEL was no longer worth the money he had remaining on his contract. Right now, that looks to have been a bad decision for Arizona, but it remains to be seen how things play out. But certainly if OEL had not shown any signs of decline, the Coyotes probably would not have traded him, and certainly they wouldn’t have given him away for free, and actually paid a sweetener, and salary retention, to make the trade happen. We’ve seen what the market is for top defencemen, both in asset value in trades, and contract value in extensions. If OEL was still valued like 2015-16 OEL, and had not underperformed over the past few years, he’d have been considered a bargain on his contract, and his trade value would have been sky high. That clearly wasn’t the case. OEL was “negative value” when the trade was made. That’s obvious when you look at the pieces exchanged. No media myth can affect the market to that degree. It was hockey people who made those judgments, largely based on what they were seeing on the ice (although many “hockey men” also at least consider what the “calculator boys” tell them about the analytics, before ultimately ignoring them ). Hopefully, the Canucks will be huge winners in all this, and the early signs definitely points to this. They bought pretty low on what was, at the time, a hugely diminished value asset. But they also gambled on player who possibly just needed a change of scenery to rebound and reestablish himself as one of the better defencemen in the NHL. So far, it’s looking like a very good bet.
  3. Yeah, most likely. But hopefully he’s charged anyway and they make something of an example of him. It’s a pretty ****** thing to do, especially to his teammates and fellow players, never mind the message it sends. He deserves a criminal charge, in addition to the financial hit. I’d add that the fact he clearly did the fake vaccine card thing makes me all the more suspicious he’s actually guilty of the other accusations (assault and gambling) that they haven’t been able to prove. He’s obviously willing to lie, so he’s lost any benefit of the doubt or “innocent until proven guilty” status, for me. (Just a personal opinion. I still believe in the law, and evidence, but I just feel like his character is trash and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s done everything else he’s accused of, but been “cleared” of, because of the standard of proof required.)
  4. Multiple news outlets are now reporting he submitted a fake vaccine card to the NHL. The California AG has confirmed this is a crime, both at the State and Federal level. (EDIT: Not that they’ve commented in relation to Kane, just that they’ve been clear that mere possession of a fake vaccine card is a criminal offence.) Not sure what the punishment is in California. In New York, it’s up to seven years. And could also be fraudulent use of the seal of a government agency (a federal crime punishable by up to five years imprisonment). (EDIT: should also make it clear that most State and Federal prosecutions so far are for “big fish” who are forging and selling fake cards, although some others have already been prosecuted for just possession)
  5. Wonder if Kane will face charges, if indeed he used a fake vaccination card, as has been reported? As I understand it, that’s a crime, at both the State and Federal level, and can result in heavy fines and serious jail time.
  6. True, but if you read most of their actual statements, they are still being very careful with their wording. And there’s more than enough in Benning’s direct quotes to support that line of reporting, and still stay on the right side legally and ethically. Honestly, I’ve been more surprised by the restraint shown by the local media, when it comes to this story.
  7. It’s a tricky situation, until there’s a definitive statement from Hamonic, or he gives permission to the club. Until then, his personal information is protected. The Province has given very clear guidance to employers that they may not release personal health information to the public, when it comes to an employee’s vaccination status, so the Canucks can’t really comment on whether or not Hamonic’s issues are vaccine related, even if they wanted to. With the media, it’s maybe not quite as clear legally, but ethically, it’s pretty much a no-go, as far as directly commenting on Hamonic’s personal health information, without his consent, and without the approval of the team. And even if a reporter wanted to cross that ethical line, the team has been very clear that they will not take kindly to any member of the media doing so. Most media members depend on access to do their jobs, and they would not be willing to go against such a clear prohibition from the team. There would almost certainly be consequences, possibly even ones that would threaten careers. So, basically, unless Hamonic says it’s okay to release the information, no one’s going to speak directly to the issue (if it’s vaccine related). Not the team or the press.
  8. I suppose it’s moot for the time being (with the club now announcing a “temporary leave of absence”), but it would seem mutual termination remains an arrow in the Canucks’ quiver, should they eventually need to use it. Hopefully it doesn’t come to that, and they can use this time to work out a solution that’s acceptable to both parties, and within league guidelines, that allows Hamonic to return to the team, and play the full remaining schedule (home and away).
  9. Uh oh, we have duelling sources. CapFriendly vs Puckpedia, who will win? (I might have a look at the CBA for clarity later on, but have no time right now.)
  10. Wonder if he’s agreed to report to Abby then? Perhaps they were have a little game of chicken today?
  11. Hamonic gives his permission for mutual termination by choosing to remain in breach, after informed of the consequences. EDIT: not saying this is going to happen, just it would be the next step in the process. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Canucks press pause at suspension and continue to work toward a solution. They’ve been exceedingly patient and understanding so far, and I could see that continuing.
  12. It’s very possible. We’ll have to see what happens. Next step would be the club sending a letter to Hamonic and his agent formally informing them that his failure to report will result in contract termination. Then, Hamonic would have the informed choice to either (A) report to Abby, or (B) remain in breach and have his contract terminated.
  13. Awaiting clarification from the team, which hopefully will come soon, but all signs point to this suspension being due to Hamonic’s failure to report to Abbotsford. Dhaliwal just said as much (and some others as well):
×
×
  • Create New...