Vansicle
-
Posts
1,389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Vansicle
-
-
You don't have to agree. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Me? If I want to watch pleasantries in sport involving gentlemen, I'll watch Polo and Golf. Otherwise, I don't watch hockey and football to see anything but fierce competitiveness, because that is what is expected. Like I said in my initial post, he probably shouldn't have picked the lineup at the end to say what he said, it was "classless." But it certainly isn't out of place with the sport. And as much as I like Weise, which is actually a lot as he posed for a picture for my wife at the Jets/Canucks game this last year, it was really strange that he didn't shrug this off and say, "It was just hockey, no big deal." And that's how people should look at this. Lucic isn't LITERALLY going to kill him. I mean, can't we just go onto the next nonstory in the NHL that will be blown way out of proportion?
It's such a non-story that no-one is talking about it in the NHL . . .
Reporters asked Weise what he said, he didn't tell them the words, but told them it was classless - he was right. In the handshake line, he pretty much did shrug it off. Even if Weise hadn't said anything, it was obvious to anyone who watched it that Lucic was behaving like a spoiled little girl. If he wanted it to be between he and Weise, he shouldn't have done it in front of millions of TV viewers.
You don't have to knit your opponent a sweater after they eliminate you from the playoffs in your own building, but if you don't want to respect the traditions of the game, go play street hockey.
Class is a two way street. You want to be respected, don't behave like a toddler who didn't get his juice box.
Someone is going to come along who is bigger and badder and isn't going to tolerate Lucic's bullshirt. Is Lucic going to say "he sucker punched me" when that day comes or is he going to take his beating like a man?
I think we know the answer, now.
-
3
-
-
I'm glad they're all being exposed for what they really are.
Lucic is a whiny goof, who is actually a pretty average player when he doesn't have the refs on his side.
Chara and Marchand are embarrassments to the game flopping all over the ice all game.
The current line-up isn't fit to wear the same jersey as Bobby Orr.
Especially the three turds mentioned in your post.
I'm not the least bit surprised that half-wit goon Lucic said the crap he said in the handshake; he is lacking any semblance of class or sportsmanship. And as you said, he is mediocrity incarnate when the zebras aren't slarving on his dode. He'd be depth on any other team.
-
errr yes. If they're admitting to intentionally trying to fix the outcome of a game it would be illegal. If it comes out and is proven there could be potential jail time. The only way that's not true is if I'm wrong and match fixing isn't illegal.
I mean essentially it was a joke but what I was saying was gillis kept bringing in players that weren't what the team needed. Not sure how AV came into it.
I don't think game fixing by refs is illegal unless they are taking a cut from bookies. The NHL is entertainment. Referees in the WWE aren't breaking the law. They are entertainers.
If, however, a zebra had a deal going with a certain bookie, or anyone for that matter, and stood to make a profit from gaming/gambling/etc, that would be illegal.
In any case, I don't think the NHL is as bad as the WWE, but I have had a conversation with a NHL HoFer who told me to my face that they want certain teams to win and will use officiating to that end. DO they script the games? No. Do they help the team by letting stuff go/making phantom calls? According to him they do.
I used to be of the mind that anyone who thought there was a "conspiracy" was a tinfoil hat wearing dumba$$. And to an extent, I still think that a giant network of colluders is asinine. But there is a lot of grey area in between "full blown conspiracy" and "the NHL is squeaky clean", and there is an enormous amount of money riding on merchandising, the NHL brand, attendance profit, TV viewership, etc. If an organization can be corrupt, it will be to the extent that it is possible - in other words, there is no organization that makes that much money that is impervious to some degree of systemic corruption.
Is it everyone on the NHL payroll in on it? Impossible. Are there people motivated to influence outcomes in positions to do so? Without question.
-
3
-
-
I hate when fans boo their own guys, particularly in a pivotal game like this.
If the Rags pulled this game out, they'd be 2-2 in the 2nd round after 6 games in 9 days.
Almost makes me want to see their team lose.
If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas.
If the Rags wanted to pull that game out, they'd have to not be outmatched, outclassed, and outsmarted.
-
1
-
-
Didn't look like they had too much "figured out" last night.
The score flattered the Flyers. If not for Mason's stellar play, that game is a blowout.
Speaking of blowouts, I love it when these armchair coaching experts have their theories blown out of the water. I'll bet there are quite a few of them eating crow in the Philly vs. NYR thread right now.....as well they should.
If . . .
If not for Lundquist's stellar play, the Flyers advance.
Cognitive bias is cognitive bias. I hate AV, you love AV. You find the evidence that flatters AV, I find the evidence that flogs him.
Am I wrong? Are you Wrong? No.
-
That ship has sailed, but, he doesn't look like much of a problem in NY, does he?
That team moves the puck very well, plays an entertaining, up tempo style of hockey, and has moved into the top half dozen of puck possession teams in the NHL.
Sound familiar?
The Rags leap-frogged the Nucks this year, becoming a better puck possession team (using CorsiFor% as the indicator).
The Canucks have slipped to 9th while the Rags moved up to 6th.
Under these coaches tenures, the trend is, well, it' a definite trend.
2011/12 - Canucks 7th, Rangers 19th.
2010/11 - Canucks 4th, Rangers 21st.
2009/10 - Canucks 5th, Rangers 13th.
2008/9 - Canucks 12th, Rangers 20th.
Last year in a half season, the Rags were closer - and interestingly, the Canucks this season were pretty good for a half season as well.
Sather however couldn't help but notice how "the Tortorella system" was grinding his players into the ground as the season progressed....
Sound familiar?
Add an Olympic condensed schedule and the West coast travel reality into the picture, and it's a recipe for.... exactly what happened this year? Certainly looks that way.
Let's not pretend the difference is a "trending" core. The Rangers core was "trending" last year.
This year: Richards is 33, St Louis is 38, Nash is 29, Girardi and Boyle are 29, Moore is 33.
The Rangers' average age is 27.3 years whereas the Canucks 27.5.
I'm not a fan of the idea that a coaches' job is to 'expose' his players, the roster, the core, the depth, or his GM.
Bring in someone who makes the most of what he has to work with.
As opposed to last season where the Rags . . . went . . . to the . . . Conference Finals with Torts.
If Torts weren't fired, the Rags would be exactly where they are and the Canucks would be exactly where they are.
I'm not going to defend Torts, 'cause I don't really give two shirts about him, but AV was a huge reason for the Canucks being in the state they are in - Unnecessary goalie controversy, complacent stars, et al - just as Torts is a huge reason for the state that team is in.
-
Thank you.Torts brought them to the conference finals... Don't get carried away
-
So, let me see . . . You disagree?Thank goodness you are a man of few words .. "I bet he never gets a GM job again"? .. you say you agree with 'every word'? .. OK .. how much are you willing to bet, and at what odds? .. or are you just blowing smoke up someones rectum here? .. or are you just a 'dupe' account of Mispelled who has inserted an opinion?
Real money .. a reputable accounting firm near where you live .. a 'real' bet .. anytime ..
I though it was a bery well thought out post. Ad I did say every word. But I don't know if he'll get hired as a GM again, so . . . Pow! You got me! Great sleuthing.
I would rephrase the never again statement by sayin it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't get pocke up as a GM eer again. Clubs are going to look at that goalie situation and second guess hiring him. Not quite Milbury bad, but bad.
I have to go now. I need to pat myself on the back as Mispelled . . . Keep up the great detective work.
-
So again AV stands behind a bench full of shining stars and gets the praise for their brilliance?Well done....I guess it's no coincidence that the Ranger players pretty much had JT out the door with their exit interviews,....The coach you are talking about that gives blank generalized politically correct statements is winning,and in the playoffs....and makes JT look like a donkey....Cheers,...
To compare the two teams based solely on their coaching is hilariously impossible, given one team is bursting with talent and the other is sorely lacking it .
I 'll give AV this much, he knows how to position himself as the hero. Let's see if the Rags fare as well in series play as they did in regular season play . . .
-
Couldn't have said it better. Every word.Wouldn't you call the Roy signing an epic fail, in the context of THAT cup run... on a team lacking a prototypical 3rd line centre?
I would. Numb-hands Gillis should have shored up that gaping hole and got a Carkner for that storied free-fall. You and I are on opposite sides of the fence on Gillis.
I have been a "Gillis hater" since the 2011 trade deadline. Hate meaning, I was pissed that he wouldn't do anything to fill the roles that were/are needed to play playoff hockey.
The old, "we got within one game of the cup..." crap never sat well with me, due to the way we lost. To me, its not so important to win as it is in how the team plays. That series was just like a prison-sex scene.
Gillis was always behind the curve. His legacy here is a mess of NTC's and disrespect around the league towards the team. Nobody hated Detroit when they were winning, so throw out his reasoning for the hate directed at the team for the past few years as being derived from success. The man was a PR disaster, period. It is so bad now that #16 has to come in and repair relations with the whole damn province.
I bet he never gets a GM job again.
-
2
-
-
ThisWatch the Torts interview before you say you want him gone from a misconstrued TSN article.
My god people.
-
I bet he wins a cup before we do.
You're on.
-
Not sure how I feel about this, MG has made a TON of mistakes, but I don't know who is available that could be better.
My grandmother is available.
-
Go back and read the links you posted Nino.
Elvis is talking plain sense.
The fact of the matter is that the NHL registered those contracts. The NHL had an obligation not to do so if they were considered in violation of the existing CBA.
An analogy would be if a food truck business applied to a city to park and operate a food truck in a public location, knowing that parking there is generally prohibited, but nevertheless, given the fact that a half dozen other trucks are parked and operating there, see exceptions taking place and wish to capitalize themselves. They receive approval of that application.
A few years later they are issued years worth of retroactive parking violation tickets.
But to the fact that the NHL retroactively decided to create a cap recapture penalty, after having registered those contracts - while you maintain that even our dogs knew better - that is simply mickey mouse legality.
In fact - ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law - is forbidden by both the United States Constitution and the prohibited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution.
The NHL was responsible to require GMs to renegotiate the terms of that contract at the time. If the contract were not acceptable, the team should have been charged to amend/correct the violating aspects of that contract at the time. Instead, they registered them. GMs submit these contracts to the NHL for approval. As Gillis stated, he submitted it to the NHL and "awaited instructions." They registered it - the part you don't seem to understand.
If they were as 'annoyed' etc as you seem to believe Nino, that was the appropriate actionable moment.
It's interesting that the specific precedent is referred to as the 'Luongo clause' considering how many other contracts are subject to it -
Backstrom,
Campbell,
Carter,
Chara,
Crosby,
Doughty,
Ehrhoff,
Erat,
Fleury,
Franzen,
Hall,
Hossa,
Johnson,
Karlsson,
Keith,
Koivu,
Kopitar,
Kronwall,
Malone,
Myers,
Nash,
Ohlund,
Parise,
Quick,
Richards,
Richards,
Rinne,
Savard,
Spezza,
Staal,
Staal,
Suter,
Weber,
Zetterberg.
I guess when Gillis does it a big protest is in order. Let's name it after Gillis and Luongo! Are these kinds of exceptions not intended to include he and Luongo?
Now what you're doing is attempting to cherry-pick Gillis out of a whole crowd of GMs who made this common practice - and why shouldn't Gillis take advantage of loopholes that virtually all other GMs are using to their advantage and being approved by the NHL at the time?
You're also attempting to hindsight something as unconventional as an ex post facto recapture penalty - as if that were something that was predictable. None of your links predicted it. If you're suggesting that you did, I think you're talking out your posterior tbh - you are unable to produce even a single reference to the possibility. What it is imo is an internal corporate exception to the rule that stands because it's 'internal', not really worth disputing in terms of cost/benefit of the battle, is 'fair enough' in that it effects GMs who used it proportionally, and the penalty isn't signifcant enough to make the battle worthwhile, certainly not in the present. I won't be surprised if it doesn't stand up in the future.
They had no choice but to honor those contracts, because technically they were adherent to the existing rules, but if you look at some of the contracts in question, they were never intended to be honored - that's why it is called cap circumvention. With respect to the Lou contract specifically, it was understood and openly talked about by everyone but the principals that Lu wouldn't likely play several of the last several years of that contract, and was therefore intended as a means of disregarding the cap. Yes, the contract adhered to the letter of the law, but it violated the spirit of the law and is therefore in violation of the intent of those who wrote it - also known as "gaming the system", "rules lawyering, etc. However legal, it is unethical and morally reprehensible.
I don't want to side with Nino, and I'm not actually in 100% agreement of his message, but in this specific detail, I felt compelled to chime in.
-
No thanks.
The NHL was concerned about the contracts, yes, but they approved them and drew the line for what was legal. GMs were certainly finding ways to maximize their cap space, but they knew the NHL had final approval on any deal they signed and could deny them if they wanted to.
That's not bending the rules, but rather following them to their limit.
It's actually more like loophole exploiting. Like lawyers who scour tax laws to find ways for giant mega corporations to not pay any taxes. Legal as it may be, it's still vile.
Every law, rule, etc, has room for interpretation. If you are searching for the very edge/limit, you are looking to come as close to breaking it as you can, and it suggests you would break it if you thought you wouldn't get caught.
A body check that is technically legal but puts a guy in the hospital, for example, is committed by a scumbag. Scumbags need to be buried in shallow graves.
-
-
How can you say, "if he actually wants out"?? Isn't it 100% clear by his body language and his lack of denial that he desperately wants out. The problem is, it will be another Luongo situation. I would guess MG wants something like Tavares, a top prospect and a first rounder. Not going to happen and he will stew here like Luongo did.
In other words, MG has torpedoed this team into suckdom. I'll buy that.
-
well at least Lack never let in 8 goals in a must win playoff game
QFT
-
So....we trade Luongo and a solid depth defenseman for a third line centre, a disappointing goalie, and a 5th round pick?
Wow.
You wee expecting maybe bold moves?
Gillis is a lame duck.
-
Last summer MG wanted the moon for Luongo. Now he trades him for magic beans because he "had to".
I love how no matter what Gillis asks/gets for Luongo, it was exactly what Gillis should have done.
If we were going to trade Lu for nothing (compared to Kadri, Gardner +1st), why trade Schneider at all?
He could have dumped the contract (as it appears he has tried to do) and kept the cornerstone of a proper rebuild.
And to those saying he got value for Lu: Why did he have to eat 15% of his contract? If Lu was soooooo bloody valuable, why keep 15% of his salary?
Answer - He did not get value for Lu.
Gillis has tricked me on a couple of occasions into thinking he isn't a piss poor GM. I was wrong.
-
1
-
-
This team is gonna suck for years to come. It's time to move on from Kesler and get some future assets.
This is BS.
Every rebuild has a corner stone. If not Kes, who?
Schneider could have been that cornerstone, but Gillis had to save his own ass.
I'm reminded of a Hans Christian Anderson story about a naked ruler who is coddled by his subjects.
So while so many here think Gillis is a genius, I am more of the mind that he's buck naked. I hope for his sake it's cold outside because I'm not at all impressed.
-
Jesus Christ.
If Gillis loses Kesler he is brain dead.
I'd rather see Gillis gone, screw this season and start from scratch over the summer.
MG looks like a schizophrenic over the course of the last 12 months. He needs to be sh*tcanned before he does any more damage.
He's going to ruin this team to try to save hs own ass.
Wingnut..
-
I'm more than a little pissed off that we lost Schneider unnecessarily.
-
1
-
-
The same dorks that are constantly harping "Cody is gone, let him go" , can't stop stroking AV's nads.
AV got the best years of nearly all of these players. They were in their prime for the 2011 Finals. You could even see that they were tailing off the last two seasons. Now that they're nearly spent, they say "don't you miss AV?"
Dolts.
-
2
-
[Confirmed] Jim Benning signs as new Canucks GM
in Canucks Talk
Posted
God, you're sanctimonious.