SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

I cheered for the Hurricanes and the Lightning. I’ve never really been one of those people who will suddenly start cheering for a hated rival during the playoffs, just because that team is based in Canada. I will, however, cheer for teams with players that I like, especially if those players are Canadian. And both Carolina and Tampa Bay had a lot of Canadian players (I think the Lightning actually had more Canadian players than the Flames), and both of those US based teams had several players that I was happy to see lift the Cup and bring it back home to Canada during the offseason. But cheering for Calgary or Edmonton fans to get a parade? Nah, I hate the Flames and the Oilers, and I hate their fans. I’ll cheer for their heartbreak, every time. Maybe that makes me an *******. I’ve just never felt like my Canadian pride should be measured by how hard I cheer for the teams that I’ve hated for years. I’ve cheered against the Flames and Oilers, all season long, year after year, for decades. A hated team suddenly lucking their way into the Stanley Cup Finals doesn’t really change anything for me. I still hate those teams (and their fans) and want to see them lose.

Probably been about 5 “missed” interference calls that have led to prime offensive opportunities for the Oilers this game. Would be nice if the refs would call them, but that’s clearly not in tonight’s script (as it wouldn’t help the Oilers reach their milestones tonight).

The “My beard is kind of weird” part makes me think of those Just for Men ads that used to always run during sports broadcasts.

The funny thing to me about #grocerygate is that not too long ago, Micaela Gaudette was public enemy number one around these parts, and basically getting labelled as Typhoid Annie, because she, wait for it... went in-store grocery shopping during the pandemic. Or, perhaps more importantly, she was a woman who went on an all women hockey podcast, and talked about wanting to go grocery shopping. She was roundly condemned for flouting NHL recommendations, which state that groceries should be delivered whenever possible. But she was still acting in full compliance with BCCDC guidelines. Then, JB goes grocery shopping a week after being down in Texas and the reaction is “how dare people criticize JB, leave the man alone!” Sure, JB apparently has a quarantine exemption, so wasn’t breaking any rules (other than those very same NHL recommendations). But was Micaela actually breaking any rules? And did the people who are now so full-throatedly defending JB also step up to defend Micaela, when it was her getting basically burned at the stake on social media and on these boards?

Ugh. So stupid. Sure, Mac is making contact with a downed player, purposefully skating into him, and kind of giving Nurse an extra “F-you,” after Nurse goes down from contact (that Nurse initiated) and taking the high stick (which mostly seem to result from Mac just losing his balance from the contact). It’s a chippy play, a bit of a mix of taunting and intimidation (you could even could say “unsportsmanlike” and I wouldn’t argue), but it’s definitely part of the “game within the game.” If Mac actually made any real contact with Nurse, knee to head, then yes, absolutely, bring on the supplementary discipline. Players are responsible for their bodies, and any significant head contact needs to be punished. If Mac had actually taken a run and violently swung his knee, missed, but obviously been looking to knee Nurse straight in the head, then yes, time for some serious supplementary disciple. That’s crossing the line (getting near criminal) and has no part in the game. But skating over to a downed opponent, after a collision (and one that the opponent initiated, but got the worst of), not actually hurting him (other than the accidental high stick), or even really looking to, but just skating into him after a collision, to send a little bit of an extra message? That’s just big boy hockey, and Mac shouldn’t be expected to apologize for playing the game that way, or face any type of supplementary discipline, beyond the penalties assessed and served out during the game.

I guess they’ve settled on “Bonesy” for his nickname. The “Boner” crew on CDC must be heartbroken.

Definitely adds a very intriguing name to the list of answers to the inevitable “but who would replace him?” question, whenever the topic of #FireBenning comes up around here. Would also be a nice trivia piece to have Gorton replace Benning, in Vancouver, after JB did the same to Gorton, in Boston (when Benning got promoted to the AGM position that Gorton was fired from in 2007). Always fun watching the 100 hockey men play musical chairs.

I think it’s important to separate Tryamkin from the discussion, because his status is completely different. He’s not under draft rights, and there’s no transfer agreement. For Tryamkin to have been signed, he needed to be out of contract in Russia (either by expiry or buy out). Otherwise, he can’t sign an NHL deal. So his re-signing with Avto is pretty much the final nail in the coffin, when it comes to him ever playing for the Canucks again. For drafted prospects within transfer agreement systems, they can be signed, so long as the draft rights are in effect, so the contracts in their European leagues don’t really matter. Karlsson and Jurmo need to play somewhere. To play in their respective Euro leagues (SHL, Liiga), they need to be under contract. The length of those contracts don’t really signal anything, when it comes to their NHL aspirations. If the Canucks decide to offer an ELC to either of them, it breaks their European contracts, and they are free to leave those systems. And I’m pretty confident both would sign, without hesitation, if offered an NHL ELC by Vancouver. The transfer agreements basically lets the European pro leagues operate like farm systems for the NHL. NHL teams are free to leave those players to develop as long as they feel it’s needed (within the term of the draft rights), and then offer contacts when they feel the player is ready to transition to the NHL/AHL. Karlsson extending his SHL contract through 2022-23 really shouldn’t be interpreted as him signally his refusal to sign an ELC with Vancouver any time before June 1, 2022. I mean, sure, it’s true than any drafted prospect can technically avoid signing with the NHL team holding his rights. He just has to refuse to sign offers and then wait for rights to expire. But it’s extremely rare. Almost never happens, other than maybe a handful of players each decade, mostly from the NCAA. A European player signing an extension with his European team, while under a transfer agreement, shouldn’t be interpreted as him planning to hold out for NHL free agency, since, by virtue of the transfer agreements, those European contracts don’t prevent him from signing an ELC with the NHL team holding his draft rights. Toni Utunen’s Liiga contract is also expiring this season. He’ll probably sign again somewhere in Finland, possibly even for another 2-3 years. But that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t still jump at the chance to accept an NHL ELC, if the Canucks offered one between now and when his draft rights expire on June 1, 2022.

No problem. It’s actually a really good system (although I’d agree with the Swedes, who think the compensation should be higher, especially for their “star” players). But it really helps out some of the smaller teams in those European systems. The compensation gets split, so a small team that had a future NHLer when he was younger, and then let him move on to a bigger market and/or higher league (like SHL), will still get a cut of the NHL transfer fee. This money really helps out, and can mean new facilities and equipment to keep small teams going. I just saw that the Swiss finally signed on, when the agreements were renewed in 2020, so the only major European system without an agreement now is Russia (MHL, VHL, KHL), but the rest of Europe has working transfer agreements. EDIT: Also, I believe the Swedes were finally successful in getting the AHL age exemption removed from the most recent agreement (2020), something they’ve really pushed for in previous negotiations. So now, European players will need to be 20 years old to play in the AHL, just like their North American counterparts (college players are still exempt IIRC). This means that many Swedish prospects will stay in Sweden longer, since teenagers can no longer be sent to the AHL, so NHL teams will need to be sure draftees are NHL ready, or else they will need to leave them in Sweden until they are at least 20 years old.

Karlsson’s new contract doesn’t affect his draft rights. The transfer agreement allows any NHL team holding draft rights on a Swedish player to sign him to an ELC, while under contract in Sweden. The NHL and the Swedish Ice Hockey Association negotiate terms and renew the agreement (last one was 2020), which establishes a set level of financial compensation for every player signed to an NHL ELC out of the Swedish leagues (it’s been about $240k per player, for the first 10 players each year, and then has an escalator to $325k for players 11 and above, but those figures have probably gone up with the latest version signed in 2020). The transfer agreement basically gives every player within participating leagues an out clause to sign an NHL entry level deal with the NHL team holding their draft rights, and also compensates the Euro teams losing those players (the NHL team pays the hockey federation for the country, and then the federation distributes the money, usually between all the teams that helped develop the player). So Karlsson’s new deal doesn’t change anything. The Canucks hold his rights until June 1, 2022, and can sign him to a contract within that window. A signed ELC will break any Swedish pro contract, and compensation will be paid out accordingly.

Draftees from Sweden don’t need “out clauses.” The transfer agreement takes care of that. If he’s signed to an NHL ELC, the NHL contract overrides any Swedish pro contract. The Swedish Federation gets paid set compensation (the rate is negotiated in the transfer agreement), which gets split between the teams that developed Karlsson. He’s a Euro pick, so four years draft rights, which, as you note, expire June 1, 2022 (he was a 2018 pick). EDIT: “Indefinite” draft rights only happen when a player is drafted out of the system that doesn’t have an active transfer agreement (like Russian leagues, ie: MHL, VHL, KHL, and IIRC the Swiss leagues as well.)

I hope Cheech isn’t eating those during broadcasts! Those look to be restaurant packs with raw burgers and fixings, Ready to cook but not ready to eat. If he’s scarfing those things down, as is, during the games, then the red on his plate probably isn’t just ketchup. Not that I’m against a nice beef tartare, but I’d probably draw the line at boxed smashburger tartare.

100% agree. I think it’s shortsighted on Tryamkin’s part, and likely costs him career earnings over the long term (and certainly delays his opportunity to cash in on a rich NHL deal). He’d probably make more by taking a one year deal with Vancouver, even at something near league minimum, and then look for a bigger payday, once he had the 2021-22 NHL season under his belt, and NHL GMs viewed him with more certainty. You didn’t quote this part, but I actually said something similar in my earlier post: “I suppose you could also say that, if Tryamkin really wanted to be an NHLer, he’d just take the financial hit for one season, and then bet on himself being [able] to earn more the next year, and the rest of his career.”

Apologies, I’m out and posting on my phone, so I can’t really look everything up right now. But if memory serves, escrow for 2021-22 was capped at 20%, not 50%. This season, you could get to something around 50% if you combine escrow and deferrals, although the deferred salary will be repaid (I believe in annual payments over the next 2-3 years). I don’t think there’s deferred salary next year. But again, don’t have everything in front of me. As for $1 million “tax free,” there aren’t tax free salaries in the KHL. Russians pay 13%. Sometimes, salaries are reported as the after tax figure, but they aren’t tax free. So, it’s possible Dhaliwal meant to say one million after tax, but that would likely make Tryamkin the highest paid defenceman in the entire KHL, which I’m not sure I’d believe until I see it. And I don’t think Tryamkin would pay full top Canadian tax rate. Between foreign status, possible signing bonuses (taxed at only 15%), use of financial instruments, and a good accountant, he could probably get his effective rate down to something closer to 30%. I really don’t think he’d need much more than a $2M NHL salary to beat whatever he’s getting in the KHL, even after you take escrow into account, and the tax rates, Canada vs. Russia.

I believe Tryamkin’s side when they say that the offer from the Canucks wasn’t high enough to make it financially worthwhile for him to come to Vancouver. The question remains, what was the offer? And what was the asking price (that would have made it worthwhile for Tryamkin to sign). The highest paid KHL defencemen last season had salaries of ~$1M USD. Russian tax is 13%. So, a take home of ~$870K USD for the very highest paid KHL Dmen. We don’t know what Tryamkin got on his new KHL deal, but it likely wasn’t over $1M (unless he’s going to be the KHL’s highest paid defenceman next season, which seems unlikely). If we assume the highest tax rate in Canada at roughly 50%, then an Canucks salary of $1.75M is roughly equivalent to a KHL $1M salary. Of course, Tryamkin likely wouldn’t pay the full 50% to taxes. If he maintained foreign status (less than 183 days residency), his rate would be probably be lower (I’m not sure about Russia-Canada tax treaties). If he had signing bonuses, those usually only get taxed at 15% for foreign players. And he could put a portion of his salary into RCAs, which he’d then only pay 20% on. So his effective tax rate in Vancouver could easily be a lot less than 50%. So what does it all mean? Well, I’d think that the rumoured salary demands in the $1.5-2M range seem in line with what Tryamkin felt he would need in Vancouver, to make it financially worthwhile to come over, versus what he’s getting paid in the KHL. And the Canucks weren’t willing to pay him that. So, the rumoured Canucks offer of just over $1M is probably accurate. You could say that the Canucks lowballed him. Or, they felt it was fair value (I can actually get behind that argument, to a degree, as Tryamkin doesn’t really deserve an offer based on any NHL comparables, given how long he’s been away, so a low ticket, one year deal is somewhat defensible). However, given Tryamkin’s situation, you’d think that if the Canucks really wanted to get him signed, they’d be able to step up a few 100k and offer him something that actually paid him better (as far as take home) than his KHL salary. (I suppose you could also say that, if Tryamkin really wanted to be an NHLer, he’d just take the financial hit for one season, and then bet on himself being about to earn more the next year, and the rest of his career.) What I don’t see here is any reason to think Tryamkin was being greedy and asking for more than what made sense for him, based on what he could get in Russia. Or that he was just using the Canucks for negotiation purposes, and never intended to sign here. Everything he and his agent have done the past year has suggested they wanted to be back in the NHL (with Vancouver) for the 2021-22 season. Seems like the Canucks just had a “walk away” number, and so did Tryamkin, and that number was probably somewhere in the $1.5-2M range (as reports have suggested). Canucks wouldn’t come up to that number, and Tryamkin wouldn’t accept anything less (as that would require him taking a financial loss, compared to what he probably gets by staying in the KHL).

I think I’m the most curious on how far apart they were on a one year deal? Tryamkin’s agent said their side was willing to accept either one or two years term, but couldn’t make the money work, with what the Canucks were offering. And the rumoured asking price floating around was ~$2 million per season (some, like Dhaliwal, had said Tryamkin was open to going as low as $1.5M per season). Makes it seem like the Canucks were playing hardball and holding firm at something <$1.5M, and wouldn’t come up to meet Tryamkin. It’s fine, I guess, but would be just a little disappointing if the issue was merely a couple 100K. I’m fine with trying to get the best deal (that’s generally the approach I want to see), but just seems like they could have easily saved that much, and many times over, if they brought more discipline to past negotiations with higher ticket players (take your pick, the list is long), where they’ve been pretty free spending, versus nickel and diming over small potatoes like a couple 100K on a short term deal. I’d really have had zero issue with a one year deal at something $1.5-2M, if indeed that wouldn’t got him signed, sealed, and delivered. I’d feel differently if Tryamkin was demanding $3 million, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest his asking price was anywhere close to that high.

I wish we knew the numbers involved, because that would certainly inform my opinion on whether it was Tryamkin being “too greedy” or the Canucks being “too cheap.”

My respect for hummingbirds, after reading this thread title: (I just keep picturing a tiny hummingbird with superhero powers just laying waste to the entire pipeline construction project.)

Finally, some good news!

Sexual misconduct is not a legal term, at least in Canada, and I’d argue that, if anything, it’s a much less accurate way to describe these allegations. “Sexual misconduct is a lay term, sometimes used in institutional policies or by professional bodies. It covers an array of problematic sexual behaviour including sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual abuse. Two of these terms have specific (and different) legal meanings: Sexual assault has a specific meaning in the criminal law context, unlike sexual misconduct, which may cover both criminal and non-criminal conduct.” (The quote above is from Elaine Craig, associate professor, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, where she researches and teaches on law and sexuality.) I really wouldn’t draw any conclusions from initial press reports or organizational statements using the “sexual misconduct” lay terminology, especially this early on. If the investigation actually leads to any charges against Virtanen, they would be for sexual assault. And, if the allegations are true, the account from the alleged victim clearly describes a sexual assault, under the Canadian legal definition. However, this early into the story, without an investigation completed, and with no charges, it makes sense for the press and the Canucks to use “sexual misconduct” to describe the allegations against Virtanen. The legal system will determine if a crime was committed. And if so, it will almost certainly be termed a sexual assault. But the use of “sexual misconduct” at this early stage, either by media or the Canucks organization, should not be misconstrued as anything that would lessen the severity of what’s been alleged.

It’s worth noting that the Canucks team statement includes the language “we have engaged external expertise to assist in an independent investigation.” I would assume a big part of the independent investigation would be to determine if there are grounds for contracts termination, regardless of what the outcome might be of any criminal investigation. You are very correct that the CBA and player contracts contain numerous statements that basically function as “morals clauses,” and it likely wouldn’t (and shouldn’t IMO) require a conviction for sexual assault for Virtanen to be terminated, based on this allegation, and the results of the team’s own investigation. EDIT: Just in case anything might be misconstrued, I’m not saying Virtanen is guilty. That remains to be determined. Just that a criminal investigation not resulting in a conviction doesn’t necessarily mean that he’ll escape contract termination. If the team determines they have grounds, from whatever they uncover through their own investigations, I think they would very likely pursue contract termination. (also I don’t know what happened with the font size in this post)

This is such a bad take, and I’m honestly surprised people still think this way in 2021. Sex requires consent. And that consent can be withdrawn at any time. Sex without consent is rape. Going to someone’s hotel room is not giving them consent to have sex. And you don’t have to scream for help to withdraw consent. (Not that the alleged victim appears to have ever gave her consent. According to the allegations, she clearly stated, from the start, and repeatedly, that she did not want to have sex with Virtanen, repeatedly said “no” to his coercion and advances, and she even attempted to physically restrain him.) “She kinda knew what was coming” is not a defence for an allegation of rape. * * * * * I wouldn’t have thought it necessary to post this, until reading some of the comments in this thread, but here’s a link to a helpful infographic that explains consent: https://westernusc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ID5192-Consent-Infographic-V5-1.pdf

The stats generally liked him too. None of the raw events rates numbers looked too great, due to the whole team getting buried, but Lind’s possession numbers were generally positive, relative to the team. I think usage also reflected well on Lind, with Green giving him 17+ minutes in his NHL debut, and playing him without much in the way of sheltering, when it came to zonestarts and QoC. Individually, Lind had the 2nd highest ixG (individual expected goals) on the Canucks (only JT Miller was higher). And Lind was actually responsible for about 85% of the team expected goals-for during minutes when he was on the ice (his teammates weren’t creating much of anything on their own, during Lind’s minutes, in terms of scoring chances or expected goals). Lind had 3 individual scoring chances, 2 of them high danger, and was credited with the only 5v5 rush attempt on the team. He also added a hit and a key shot block.

I dunno about Michael, but how about Mike? As in: “M.I.K.E. to the DYou come and see me and you pay a feeDo what I do professionallyTo tell the truth I am exactly what I want to be” (Pass the Mic) Or, now that he’s back playing games in Utica: “Well, Mike D's out back and he's growin' onions I've got bigger buns than my man Paul Bunyan's I've been going nuts gettin' all cooped-up Fully hermitizing but now I'm getting souped-up It's time to turn the page to a brand new chapter Settin' my sights and you know what I'm after” (Finger Lickin’ Good) Or when he robs somebody with a huge save: “I'm Mike D. And I get respect Your cash and your jewelry is what I expect” (Paul Revere) And, of course, when he pulls back that mask, revealing the new stash and beard: “My name is Mike D, and I'm the ladies choice” (Three MC’s and One DJ)

I’m one of those “reallllllly realllllllly like him” people, when it comes to Guenther. If he somehow falls to us (and we haven’t won a lottery pick), I’d be really psyched. He feels kinda like the Elias Pettersson of this year’s draft (not as a player comparison, but as far as some of the rankings—although I expect he’s much higher on most teams’ internal boards than what you see reflected in many of the public websites). If he’s picked anywhere outside the top-5, some team is getting very lucky and they’re probably going to look like geniuses on the redrafts in a few years. (Hopefully, that team is the Canucks.) However, McKenzie (TSN) recently listed him tied for 2nd overall in his mid season rankings (which are compiled from rankings by ten NHL amateur scouts), so unfortunately, it doesn’t look like NHL teams will be sleeping on Guenther. He may very well be the first forward off the board, and gone in the top-3.