SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

Good fit for the Devils then? (or, I suppose, Vancouver )

I suspect it’ll come down to how successful his junior year is. If McDonough has a huge year in 2021-22, individually, and the team maybe wins a tournament, he might be ready to sign. Ride that momentum right into the pros. If he competes next year feeling like he still has unfinished business, both in terms of his development, and the team aspirations, then I could easily see him playing out the full four years. I still think he’ll sign with Vancouver, even if he’s in his free agency year. From everything I’ve heard, the relationship is solid between McDonough and the Canucks, much like it has been with out other college prospects. Of course, if he does stay in college for 2022-23, we’ll spend the whole season talking about August 15th, 2023 (his free agency date) in this thread, until he signs.

Not this year, but yes, I think they will sign him, either in 2022 or 2023.

I don’t think so. I think he’s going to gain a lot from having Brad Shaw on the staff. And I also think his defensive issues are already a bit overstated, even at his current stage in development, and without any improvements. His struggles mostly tend to show themselves in the areas of the game that are most obvious, like in-zone defending, net front, and handling larger bodies. There’s a fair amount of confirmation bias in analyses that say Hughes is truly “bad” at defence. He’s already a highly effective neutral zone defender, possibly even one of the better ones on the team (he snuffs out a lot of opposition offence before it even gets to his own blue line). And his in-zone defence isn’t really all that bad (he actually does a lot of things right), and it should improve significantly with the right coaching, and just maturity, and maybe gaining a little more strength. I see Hughes, in his prime, being at worst a neutral value defensive player, and elite on the offensive side. He should be able to tilt the ice enough during 5v5 that he’s not having to defend too much in his own zone. But when he does, I think he has the smarts to learn to be effective, even at his size (and like I said earlier, he’s got a great teacher in Shaw who I expect will really help Hughes refine his in-zone defensive game over the next couple seasons).

In fairness to Huggy, that’s kind of his resting face. Unless he’s celebrating a play, he just looks miserable pretty much all the time, when he’s on the ice. His facial expressions seem to alternate between looking like he just got dumped by his girlfriend and looking like he’s literally dying out there. EDIT: He’s a confident and positive kid, however, but it just doesn’t tend to show in his facial expressions. Just has one of those faces. Kind of like a sad puppy, unless he’s actually smiling. His body language usually gives a better read on how he’s actually feeling (and you’re right that there were a few times during that series when he looked a bit dejected and/or frustrated).

Yeah, Rafferty is too good at the AHL level not to re-sign. We need that depth and also just better for our younger AHL prospects if they are surrounded with good players and the Abbotsford team is competitive. Would have said the same for Jašek, too. He’s been very successful at the AHL level and it would have been great to keep him around, both for depth, and to have a C/W in the Abbotsford who can provide both first line level offence, and/or primary matchup duties in a two-way role. Hopefully Jazzy is getting paid the big bucks in Finland (top players can get 200-400k euros, plus some perks), and has a successful year.

Also, does anyone else think that red kidney beans are kind of overrated? Made chilli tonight and used the white kidney (cannellini) beans, and also threw in some black beans, instead of using the standard red kidney beans. Tasted so much better! I’ve made white chilli before, like with a light sauce and chicken, have made vegan mixed bean chilli (with several types of beans), and I make a good black bean chilli. But always put those red beans in standard beef chilli (unless I’m making it Texas style, of course). Tonight, just realized none of us really like those red kidney beans (at least when they’re in chilli). Something about the skins and texture just hit different, especially compared to the white cannellini beans. Wife and kids agreed that tonight’s chilli was really good, especially because of the beans, and compared to the last batch using the usual red kidney beans. Of course, appearance wise, white and black beans in a red meat sauce doesn’t have that same deep monochromatic colour, like you get with a traditional chilli, but I can live with that. (I’m sure there are people in Texas reaching for their shotguns, just with all this bean talk around chilli.) Anyway, looks like from now on, at our house, it’s gonna be Grana Padano in our Caesar salads and white kidney/cannellini beans in our chilli. I guess I’ll save those red kidney beans for when I make red beans and rice. Is there anything else red kidney beans are good for? I have a bunch (canned and dry) in the pantry that I’m gonna have to use up eventually.

So I was today years old when I learned that the original Caesar salad was made with Grana Padano and not Parmigiano-Reggiano! Why didn’t I know this before? Anyway, my wedge of Parmigiano was getting down to the rind, so used the newly bought wedge of Grana Padano instead and it was very good in tonight’s salad. I might just keep making Caesar salad this way. I do use Grana Padano a lot, for all types of other dishes (including salads), just have always put Parmigiano-Reggiano in my Caesar salad, and didn’t realize it wasn’t actually the “authentic” way (well, at least “authentic” for a salad that’s a Mexican invention with a “Roman” name that uses Italian cheese). Anyway, I’m sure this is pretty boring, and probably a lot of you already knew this. Just not me, until today. But I can’t feel too bad, since I was raised on this stuff: At least I’m breaking the cycle of culinary abuse, and feeding my kids real cheeses, even if I’m not always using them as “correctly” as I thought.

More lazy than lying, I think. I doubt they were really trying to deceive anyone. If they’d written two players and two picks, they’d be accurate. Of course one of the picks was conditional (we’d have given up a 2022 4th rounder if we’d re-signed Toffoli). And the second player was Schaller. Definitely not a prospect, given he was 29 years old at the time of the trade. In terms of actual assets of significant value, it’s just Madden and the Canucks 2020 2nd round pick. But the full trade was Schaller, Madden, 2020 2nd, and 2022 4th (conditional), for Toffoli. I can see how someone unfamiliar with team and/or the assets involved, or just rushing to finish an article, could mistakenly summarize the Toffoli trade as the Canucks giving up “two prospects and two picks.” Of course, they’d be wrong. But I don’t necessarily think they’d be lying. The guy appears to be an East Coast based freelance NHL writer. I wouldn’t expect much depth or accuracy to his research and commentary on the Vancouver Canucks.

Almost? Sekeres is the worst. He lies, straight up. Makes up many of his stories. Drance and Burke can be annoying af, but they don’t really lie. They get some things wrong, but usually they’re clear when they are presenting speculation and opinion, versus reporting actual facts. When they report something, it’s usually true, and when it’s not, it’s usually just because of a bad source (or them getting tricked and used by a source seeking to spread disinformation). But they don’t straight up make stuff up and try to pass it off as news coming from “sources close to the team.” Sekeres is shockingly dishonest. I listened to him recently (the one and only time) on his podcast and it was just pumping lie after lie, and several that I could personally verify as false, and presenting it all as factual, “insider,” Canucks news. And he’s been behind so much dishonest reporting that’s been the flashpoint for false narratives and disinformation that spreads like wildfire through the market, both on social media, and the conventional, “legitimate” sports media in Vancouver. Just brutal. He has to be the worst in this market, past or present, when it comes to having absolutely zero journalistic integrity. I don’t know why anyone listens to him. Certainly can’t understand why he’s even tolerated by his peers in the media, because he makes them all look bad. And at this point, I can’t really understand why anyone in the general public still has time for him, given how many times he’s been caught deceiving his own audience.

Jurmo signed a two year contract with Jukurit, on May 3rd, 2021. https://jukurit.fi/fi-fi/article/uutiset/petrus-palmu-vahvistamaan-jukurien-hyokkaysta-saku-forsblom-ja-joni-jurmo-puolustukseen/3651/ The deal would be subject to the transfer agreement, so that contract must include an NHL out clause, as the transfer agreement recognizes the NHL’s “exclusive rights” to their drafted players. So the Canucks will have offseason windows (as set out in the transfer agreement) where they can simply offer an ELC and, if Jurmo signs, his Liiga contract is voided. Outside of those windows, the Canucks would need to get permission from Jukurit, which they’d most likely get (or they could just wait for the next window). Most European clubs don’t try to stand in the way of their players joining the NHL, they just want fair compensation (which the transfer agreement sets), and the right to bring their young players back, if they don’t make the NHL (which the agreement also provides for). EDIT: The new contract also apparently includes a two month tryout to start. I’m curious if there might be another signing window during this tryout period, if the Canucks decided to offer and ELC before the tryout period ends and the Liiga contact comes into full effect (honestly have no idea how this aspect would work, just an interesting wrinkle).

I think that’s a pretty good guess. From what I’ve heard, there’s a bit of a difference of opinion inside the organization, as to Jasek’s NHL viability. Some people think he’s legit, but others think he tops out as an AHLer, and they probably like some of the other C/W prospects more. I’d expect he asked the Canucks where he stood and he didn’t like the answer. Pretty good chance he was told he wouldn’t be getting offered an NHL contract next season and decided Finland offered him a better option, and likely more money than an AHL only deal. I’m disappointed he wasn’t given more of a shot by the Canucks, but it was always going to be tough for him to crack the NHL roster (at least any time soon), given the others competing for roles. Hopefully he can have some success in Finland, and then look to try his luck again with the NHL sometime down the road.

Those aren’t “greater than” symbols, I’m assuming, but a set of arrows signifying some evolutionary process? I’m not taking sides or picking favourites, lol, I just get the giggles imagining oldnews evolving into alflives and his final form being a little, furry, cat-eating alien.

What is it they say? If you don’t think it’s a cult, you’re probably in the cult. I don’t mean you, Jimmy. There are just some posts and threads where things sometimes start to feel a bit culty to me. And just for fun, I had a look at this article: https://blog.usejournal.com/10-signs-youre-probably-in-a-cult-1921eb5a3857 I’d say CDC hits on around 7/10, at least when it comes to some of the pro-Benning crowd. (All in fun, guys. I don’t begrudge anyone for their unwavering faith in Benning. I kind of envy it, much the same way I sometimes envy religious faith. It’s not my bag, but to each their own. Just so long as we all keep it civil, there’s room for haters, lovers, and everything in between. )

I suppose. Certainly, the pandemic threw a wrench into things and made for a very strange year, and one I hope we never see repeated in our lifetimes. But there was always going to be a team next year, and they were willing to go ahead and do millions of dollars in player extensions, even though it’s much more common practice to leave players late, versus non-cap staff. Like I said, waiting on Green and the staff made sense, as there was a need for review, and their performance wasn’t such that they should be guaranteed re-hires. But Clark, for me, was always different. He’s world class. Unlikely we could ever do better. It just doesn’t make sense to me to play chicken with an asset like that. You lock them up, ASAP. And worry about the bottom line somewhere else. Plus, while I’m sure Clark is very well compensated (probably even more so now), he’s nowhere near the salary of a Demko or even a Pearson, who they had no problem re-signing earlier than needed (obviously, Demko was a necessity, but I’d also put Clark in the same category, but Pearson, not so much ). Anyway, just my take. As for certain posters with anti-Benning bents, I’d say that cuts both ways too. And if I’m right about who I think you’re referring too, I actually find that poster’s arguments more well reasoned and evidence based than many of the worst offenders on the other side. I try to stay in the middle, but with CDC being so firmly in the pro-Benning camp, and so many people with an almost MAGA level cultish support of this manager (I’ve truly never seen anything like it in my years as fan of this team), I tend to think we could use a few more “haters,” even if just to keep this place honest. Just my opinion, of course, and flak jacket is going on, as I await the replies.

It kind of cuts both ways, though, Jimmy. You also have many posters here (I’d say a greater number, when it comes to CDC, than the “haters”), who are so heavily invested in years of Benning love and defending this regime, that they can’t seem to admit when mistakes are made or when unwise or unnecessary risks being are taken. If you listen to Clark today, it’s pretty clear that he did in fact have a deadline in his mind, the Canucks did miss that deadline, and Clark was preparing to move on. The Canucks came hard in the end, and they got it done. It’s funny that today we’re seeing Kevin Woodley quotes in these threads and posters using Woodley as a source because he said something positive about management being “progressive.” It’s not that long ago that many were calling Woodley a liar and “fake news,” because he was saying that the Canucks were risking losing Clark by waiting as long as they had. And as it turns out, pretty much everything Woodley reported was, in fact, accurate. Clark had a deadline. Clark had great belief in himself, what he was worth, and how he deserved to be treated. When the deadline passed, and nothing was getting done, Clark and his family started planning for the next chapter, leaving Vancouver, and working for another NHL team. Woodley always said that Clark wanted to stay in Vancouver, loved living here, was happy in his role, had great relationships with the goalies, enjoyed the work he was doing, and wanted to continue here. If the Canucks had been willing to work out an extension earlier, it likely would have been a very easy and stress-free negotiation, and probably Clark would have accepted a simply roll-over of his official duties and title, with a stardard timeline, synchronized with the GM’s contract, and the two year term eventually given to the other coaches. But after the Canucks waited, Woodley said (and quite a while back) that Clark would probably up his ask, and the Canucks would need to offer something like 5 years, and a larger role, with a new title, and more clearly defined responsibilities and control over the goaltending department, if Clark were to accept an extension this late. And that’s exactly what Clark got. I don’t know of anyone who thinks it’s a bad thing that Clark re-signed, is here for another 5 years, and is now Director of Goatending, and addition to head goalie coach. My position was always that the team should pay Clark whatever he wants and give him whatever role and title he asks for. I’m very happy with the extension. But good results don’t necessarily mean good processes. I think it was a mistake to make Clark wait, and one that could have cost the team dearly. Had they not been willing to step up with a big offer and give Clark everything he could possibly ask for, it’s quite possible he’d have walked. And I said from day one that letting Clark walk would have been a brutal unforced error. I stand by that. It didn’t happen, and I’m thankful. I give the team credit for getting it done. And I’m thrilled with the Clark extension. But I don’t think I’m being a “hater” when I maintain that the team made the process much more difficult than it needed to be, and took on much greater risk than necessary. It’s also funny how, back when there was legitimate uncertainty over whether or not Clark would be extended, there were several posters trying to bend the narrative is countless different ways that sought to shift the blame off of management, and place it firmly on Ian Clark. I saw posts about how Clark wasn’t happy here, how he wanted to live in the USA, how he wanted a new challenge, etc. And also posts where Clark was cast as a villain, his ego was too big, his demands too high, he was a whiner, he was “pissy” (yeah, somebody said it), and he was just being too difficult. It seemed like people were brainstorming the narrative, such that, if Clark left, they’d have a story ready that placed all the blame on Clark, and none on management or ownership. I’m also not buying this new narrative that the reason Clark’s extension took this long was that they were working hard on creating the new goaltending department. Clark himself has stated that his job hasn’t really changed, just his title, and the clarity of his role, responsibilities, and authority, within the organization. So it’s not like they’ve been working to create a new department all season and it just took a long time to put everything together, and that’s why Clark’s extension took until the eleventh hour to get finalized. Let’s not forgot that, just back in May, Benning’s job was under review, and it really wasn’t even clear if he would survive beyond this season. (Remember that Benning, with 2 years left on his contract, was only told on May 18th of this year than he’d actually be returning next season.) And let’s also not forget that Benning was basically not permitted to start negotiations until after ownership decided that he was coming back. The coaching extensions and hirings came together fairly quickly. Ownership was waiting because they weren’t sure who they wanted back for 2021-22, both on the management and coaching side. And for that reason, I give JB a pass, when it comes to the delays, because I’m almost certain Benning would have acted quicker (he even hinted at this several times), if ownership had actually empowered him to do so. But he wasn’t really given the green light until mid/late May, so that’s the main reason we waited. With Clark, however, I think ownership should have recognized the value of a rather unique asset, and split the goaltending coach extension off from the decisions on the main coaching staff, and empowered Benning to make the deal much sooner. I can understand why they waited on Green and the other coaching staff, and I have never really been critical of their process in that regard. Changes were needed (and I’ve been an absolute cheerleader when it comes to praising the new hires, in Shaw and Gustafson). I’m really not a hater. People may disagree, but I try to be very fair in my criticisms. I think the Clark extension was a very good result from a pretty bad process, and I mostly blame ownership for that, since they basically took it out of Benning’s hands, for most of this season.

Obviously it’s easier to build a championship team if you have top-3 picks, because those picks almost always yield either a 1C or a 1D, which are probably the most important pieces to secure in building teams. On the other hand, if we say that top-3 picks have 15 year careers, then there would be 45 of them playing in the NHL at any time. Pretty good odds most teams would have one, especially back when it was a 12 team league, and just given contending and rebuilding cycles, and the old lottery system and the drafts pre-lottery. What I’d be interested to know is how many teams since 1971 didn’t have a top-3 pick on their roster? I suspect that’s a small number.

Kinda wish he’d have used the Croatian pronunciation. “Burnaby Yo Sha-Keech”

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/local/british-columbia/2021/5/13/1_5427569.html “According to court documents, the plaintiff - identified only as M.S. - met Virtanen at the Calgary Stampede in July of that year and had been exchanging text messages with him throughout the summer. M.S.’s lawsuit claims Virtanen asked her to meet up with him after she came to Vancouver for a photoshoot and to visit friends on Sept. 26, 2017.“ The alleged sexual assault was on September 26th, 2017. I haven’t heard of any messages sent between Virtanen and “M.S.” after that date.

Would the league then be the Borg, and Bettman the Borg Queen? Francesco as Q? I figure Jonathan Wall has to be Data.

I know you’re responding to a personal attack, so I understand how things can get heated and reactive, but I’d also like to suggest that we all try to be careful not to making mocking or judgmental posts about people who get “angry” or “emotional” around these topics. Just by the numbers, there are going to be many survivors of sexual assault reading this thread, and some may find it triggering, so we should try to be sensitive to this in our posts. I’m not saying you should just let another poster call you names (and @IBatch should have been able to make their argument without resorting to personal attacks), but I’d just be careful about making certain comments, like “here is a tissue.” I’m really not looking to criticize you here, just respectfully offering a suggestion, and one that I hope everyone reading this will consider, when it comes to how they post on this topic (and others like it) I’d also suggest that we should all be sensitive about how we discuss the believability of the alleged victim and the truthfulness of her claim. Of course, Virtanen is innocent until proven guilty. But we can (and should imo) also believe victims, unless their allegations are proven to be false. I’m not saying don’t express your opinion, but just to go easy and tread carefully, when it comes to questioning the alleged victim and her account.

I would expect so. I don’t believe an NHL team has any mechanism whereby they can simply refuse to pay a player while he’s under contract (other than indefinite suspension due to failure to report, which certainly isn’t applicable here). In Virtanen’s case, it would appear he’s been placed on paid leave. It may even be voluntary, or something mutually agreed upon by both the player and the team, rather than simply imposed on Virtanen by the Canucks. Regardless, I’m pretty sure he’s still collecting his salary, same as if he were playing. The only real option the team has to stop paying him would be to terminate the contract, which they don’t really have cause for yet. It’ll depend on what the investigations reveal, but if enough comes out, they may try for material breach, based on paragraph 14 of the NHL Standard Player’s Contract (SPC), specifically the section that reads “The Club may also terminate this SPC upon written notice to the Player (but only after obtaining Waivers from all other Clubs) if the Player shall at any time: (a) fail, refuse, or neglect to obey the Club’s rules governing training and conduct of Players, if such failure, refusal or neglect should constitute a material breach of this SPC.” I believe this was the basis for the recent Brendan Leipsic termination. He was considered to be in material breach of his SPC because of his misogynistic comments and drug use discussions, in a private Instagram conversation, that were leaked on social media. Certainly not a criminal act, but very unsavoury behaviour that reflected poorly on the club, and was determined to violate rules “governing training and conduct of players.” Virtanen obviously stands accused of something far, far worse, but also something far more difficult to actually prove, at least in the legal sense. But if anything comes out of the investigations that shows sexual misconduct, even if not meeting the legal standard for sexual assault, Virtanen could very well be considered in material breach of his SPC, and the contract terminated (after going through unconditional waivers). Even various manners of wrongdoing, poor judgment, or bad behaviour, uncovered through the course of either of the two concurrent investigations, might be enough, if we apply the Leipsic standard, to be considered violations of the club’s code of conduct, but that all remains to be seen.

I’m glad you don’t count me as one of the negative nancies. I like to think of myself as more of a balanced bertha or a neutral norma.

I mean, he’s not wrong, but sheesh. Canucks also had one of the worst power plays last season. Ranked 25th. It’s a results business, especially for coaches. Washington has gone through 3 head coaches in that same period from 2017-18 to 2020-21. Their power play coach, Blaine Forsythe, has survived all those coaching regime changes, and been with the Caps since 2006-07 (in various capacities). But if Washington has one of the league’s worst power plays next season, for whatever reason, Forsythe could easily lose his job. The Canucks needed to make some changes in the coaching staff. We can debate the reasons, and where change was most needed, but somebody had to go, especially to make room for a quality hire like Shaw. Green brought Baumgartner and King up with him from Utica, and Baumer is extremely well liked inside the organization. Baumgartner wasn’t getting fired. At worst, reassigned to a different role. So Brown was the odd man out. And he was the guy responsible for the most obvious failure last season (power play dropping from 12th to 25th, so that’s that. I mean, of course Newell Brown is a good coach. He’s been working some 30 odd years, and is widely created as an innovator for the way NHL teams work their power plays today. But I think he also was getting maybe a little stale here, and maybe had lost the room a bit. Just felt like the players needed a fresh start, and some new voices and perspectives. So in come Shaw and Gustafson, Higgins gets reassigned, and Brown moves on.

Yup. When Shaw said he's an assistant to Travis and an associate coach in everything other than title, I got a big smile. Perfect role for Shaw, especially given the personnel on the staff. Pretty clear that Shaw is the #2 to Green, and all the other assistants (including Baumgartner) will basically be his subordinates. So Shaw will have his hands in everything, offence, defence, PP, and PK. Obviously, his expertise lies on the defensive side, and the PK. but his impact will likely be everywhere. Also love the bit where he said that his appeal to Travis is in the areas where they don't necessarily agree. I can see that working really well for this team. Travis wants uptempo and pressure, but Shaw wants a strong defensive foundation and structured game. If they can find the best of both worlds, it's going to be fun watching this team play. Also really liked how he talked about rebuilding confidence, both in individual players, and as a team. And also building habits so they become unconscious/automatic. Just so many great quotes in that interview. Obviously, I'm pretty psyched.