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

Kevin Biestra

Members
  • Posts

    5,764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Kevin Biestra

  1. I think I would be more than satisfied with removing the names of anyone on there from that season who was morally culpable in the incident - i.e. executives or staff who enabled it or teammates who can be confirmed to have harassed Beach about it. That's where I would stop.
  2. Now this makes the Stanley Cup look silly. I don't think this is measured and some other way of honoring Beach or establishing solutions / programs in his name would be more appropriate.
  3. Now this is sensible and measured and to the point, provided Beach wants his name among the others. And there is precedent, as Konstantinov was put on the Cup the year after his car accident.
  4. That remedy seems more sensible and to the point than transferring massive amounts of the Blackhawks funds to the NHL.
  5. How does the league gaining $50M from the Hawks really serve justice here? Never mind there hasn't actually been a criminal trial or even a trial with a civil standard yet. $50M is actually a crippling sum for many NHL teams. It immediately ends the existence of a team like Arizona with no coming back. The other thing is that this is before the courts now, where Kyle Beach can and will get a large sum from the Hawks. He might get $50M in punitive damages. On top of that the Hawks are also supposed to give ANOTHER $50M...to a fund administered by Gary Bettman? What does that really accomplish other than making you and me feel better for the moment about seeing bad things punished somehow. It is before the courts. It will or should be examined with a higher degree of detail and scrutiny than this one law firm report. I think a transfer of funds (of the magnitude you propose) between the Hawks and the NHL itself, based on a law firm's report which is not equal to the standard of an actual court trial, is just reactionary. Let it play out. Justice should be served and the individuals responsible for the harm should be made accountable.
  6. Isn't the Code of Conduct as we usually reference it a standard that is imposed on players and governed by the CBA between the teams and the players' union? I'm not familiar with the details but I've never heard of the code of conduct being applied aggressively toward team executives. It seems to have always been a "sword" used by teams against players. And it would be kind of odd for the owners / executives to use it against their own. Interesting idea though. I think this is going to just play out more like that racist basketball owner a few years back with the girlfriend that taped him. The owners and executives will just get together and pragmatically decide what is best for their image and bottom line, most likely ousting anybody that is a public eyesore and then trying to return to business as usual. So maybe something like a private meeting behind closed doors where they all say "Wirtz you did a bad" and then publicly Quenneville, Cheveldayoff, etc. all get banned.
  7. As I've said elsewhere, there is a civil court case between the victim and the Blackhawks. That's where the money is going to be extracted. I'm not that worried if the NHL doesn't also take an enormous sum from the team. It's not that important an element of the justice here. Payment is coming. As to Luongo, Kovalchuk, Arizona, etc. Those are matters specifically between the team and the league and nobody else, where nobody else even can impose a penalty.
  8. I didn't say it's going away. My whole point was that it's just getting started. The court cases, criminal and civil, are only just beginning and that's where the justice is going to happen. There are all kinds of things that the league can do here that are meaningful, like setting up new standards and practices for these situations, like keeping individuals who were culpable here out of the league, etc. I just view the league extracting money from the Hawks team as one of the less pertinent and productive things. Sure, it feels good to lay down the hammer on someone or something because these situations are disgusting, but...rather than joining the chants of "more money, bigger fine" I am willing to see where the pieces fall with all of the moving parts here. It's easy to just leapfrog over the next person, one after the other, saying this penalty should be bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. In the end, I think the fine to the Blackhawks team by the NHL is going to be one of the less important elements of the justice that comes out in the final analysis.
  9. Again, the reference letters were decisions by individuals. If Quenneville writes a sex offender a letter of recommendation that's on him. I'm not sure it's a matter between the Hawks and the NHL. It should be individual punishment for Quenneville, and it also opens him up to civil penalties if the victim that resulted from the subsequent hiring wants to sue him, and it also may open him up to criminal penalties. People forget that there is a court and justice system to handle these things. Quenneville may well be criminally negligent in contributing to someone else being sexually assaulted. The whole idea is that the courts exact justice here in the proper amount. Anyone who wrote a reference letter for this guy to get another job may be in a lot more trouble than you think. However, I think writing such a letter is on the individual.
  10. Again, I don't know. That's something like 3% of the salary cap for an operating year, not an insignificant sum. It's hard to compare it to the Kovalchuk thing which is 100% about $ in and $ out. Of course financial penalties are the thing for financial circumventions. Is fining the Blackhawks more money purposeful compared to keeping individuals who were morally culpable here out of the league, either for a period or permanently? I'm much more interested in seeing individuals held responsible for bad decisions than I am seeing the league itself take money from one team's operating budget. There's a lawsuit happening between the player and the team. He'll not only get paid, probably more than $2M, but there may be punitive damages as well, which could annihilate the team's treasure chest for a few years. I don't really get much out of seeing the league extract money from the Hawks.
  11. It's fine with me. It would be nice if the Canucks did something to honor the Millionaires. Who cares if it's the same franchise. The city won the Stanley Cup and where else would hockey fans go to celebrate that or see it honored than the city's main hockey arena. Retiring #32 however is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in the NHL. A number taken out of circulation to signal something totally meaningless. Retire the # of Bernie Morris or some other legend from the old days if you want one in the rafters. Instead, make sure everybody knows for all eternity that the Kraken were the 32nd team, as if anybody cares or ever will. What could be a more worthless thing to indicate with a retired number. The Canucks' attempt to retire #7 for the fans for about two weeks was less idiotic.
  12. I don't know. Is a company obligated to publicize misconduct by an employee? They are obligated to get the offender out of there, protect the victim, take measures to prevent recurrences, etc. but you can rest assured that terrible things have happened in every company you can name and none of them do press releases to let the world know. Now, maybe it shouldn't be that way, but you seem to be expecting more in this case simply because the company is a sports team. Moreover, an obligation for the company to disclose such things kind of doesn't give much consideration to what the victim wants. I don't know if John Doe either did or didn't want reasons for reporters to start sniffing around the incident at the time or any other point up to the lawsuit.
  13. I think Arizona probably preferred draft picks to financial penalties. The league bent over backwards there to avoid costing Arizona more money than it's already losing. It's not really apples to apples any time the Coyotes are involved in something league related vs. any other team.
  14. The Rangers had a hell of a Calder run leading up to the 94 Cup... 1989 - Winner and another finalist 1990 - 6th 1991 - 4th 1992 - Finalist Two years later... Stanley Cup.
  15. Schenn - Hunt - Poolman Dickinson - Halak Demko Thank me later.
  16. I thought we were all chanting Per Olov Brasar.
  17. Nah scrambles were a minute before the bell rings to go in and some kid just throws all his cards in the air to see people fight over them.
  18. Well you can but the flying skate was the logo on the hockey cards, TV broadcasts and all team promotional materials.
  19. The Canucks logo in 1982 and the preceding few years was the flying skate and it was on the arms.
  20. Gomez really wouldn't be so bad. Two cups and led the league in assists a few years after his rookie season. I might take him over Kovalev when playoffs and character are factored in. Bozek wasn't so bad either. >30 goal rookie and I think he played a role in the Miracle on Manchester. Injuries did him in. Otherwise he was trending toward something like Murray Craven.
  21. Hmmm... There aren't many that spring to mind but... Joe Juneau. Darryl Sutter had 40 goals his first year. Eric Vail. Mikael Renberg. Remember Kjell Dahlin and Warren Young? Or good old Steve Bozek. You could argue Joe Nieuwendyk's rookie season was his best. Or Willi Plett. Or Jason Arnott. Or Sylvain Turgeon and Mark Pavelich, both had three equal years to start and then fell off. It is still definitely the vast minority of rookies though. A bit more common with goalies... Binnington, Raycroft... Barrasso perhaps. And Roger Crozier...won 40 games in his rookie year back when there were no shootouts or three point games and a shorter season. Troy Gamble and Corey Hirsch.
  22. I'm pretty sure the red black and yellow will win playoff series per year with the colors as well. Actually forget per year...in TOTAL. I think the Canucks have won 8 playoff series in ~35 years in blue and green, and 9 playoff series in ~15 years with the flying skate. The difference in playoff success is absurd. Playoff success will always be the gold standard of metrics. As for the others you have cited, well yeah the blue and green have ~35 years and have more of those as would be expected. Given the time differential they should have more of everything but when it comes to playoffs, like I said, the old uniform is pimpslapping it with less than half the time.
×
×
  • Create New...