Xanlet
-
Posts
404 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Xanlet
-
-
Just now, wai_lai416 said:
i fully expect the canucks to continue their losing streak against new jersey which will be at 12 after tonight lmao.. how did we lose 11 in a row to a rebuilding team?
Going to guess it has something to do with playing a rested Devils team on the second night of a back to back in a time zone 3 hours ahead but who knows
-
5 hours ago, Oregon.Duck said:
This is like saying the Oilers should have had Cups already thanks to McDavid and Drai.
Pure generational talent can only take you so far these days.
I'm going to go ahead and venture a guess that 3% state tax in Pennsylvania versus 15% in Alberta (plus the lower federal tax in the US versus Canada) has something to do with signing high talent and staying under the cap.
-
4 hours ago, mikeyman109 said:
This has to be addressed in the next CBA. The cap must be after taxes. The current cap gives a very large advantage to the teams in Florida and also a few other states. its like a 10% advantage to some teams
I agree, it's just such a downer to even follow your favorite team knowing this is the case. And it has real consequences, Brayden Point came off a 41 goal, 92 point season and signed for $6.75m per, 3 year deal in Tampa in 2019. Pettersson had far inferior statistical numbers (never cracking 30 goals in a year, and only reaching a high of 66 points in a year) yet signs a 3 year deal at $7.35m per. These two contracts are very comparable, since the cap hasn't changed much due to covid. Plus, Tampa wasn't even content to have a tax advantage, they had to circumvent the cap with the injury reserve so that their playoff roster was something like $15m over the usual cap. Just an absolute circus of a league, enough to break your heart.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
The cap is fundamentally unfair because of different tax rates. Canada has quite high income tax, B.C. for example has 20.5% on all income over 227k per year, plus whatever other federal taxes apply. In places like Florida, there is 0% state tax.
This results in players receiving much higher take-home pay for lower local tax teams than for higher tax teams. For a player like Pettersson, he likely would have the exact same take-home pay he gets playing for Van at a $7.35m by accepting a $6m cap in Florida and paying way less tax on it.
To approach it another way, a larger portion of Van's salary cap goes directly to taxes than a team like Florida (or a lot of other states), meaning Van has less real money to pay players. Remember, players don't care what the number of their official salary is, they care how much money they have after taxes, and agents and teams know this and actively use it to entice players to those teams.
A rough, back of the envelope calculation means we are in the neighborhood of an automatic $10m cap disadvantage because of this structuring. I contend that it is basically impossible to overcome such a harsh handicap when the salary cap is flat across all teams.
-
2
-
3
-
The game management in this league by officials is ATROCIOUS
-
1
-
-
Just now, Roger Neilsons Towel said:
Explain why that’s not tripping
Game management. Never forget the referee caught on a hot mic literally saying he made a call because he wanted one at that time.
-
1
-
-
Tuned into watch. Phantom call. Goal against. Quality product you guys have here, NHL.
-
Just now, gurn said:
"
Conclusions
Although myocarditis/pericarditis following mRNA vaccines is rare, our analyses suggest that modifications to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine programs relating to age-based product considerations and the use of longer inter-dose intervals may reduce the risk of these events. Confirmation of these findings, and further exploration of the influence of heterologous mRNA vaccine schedules on the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis, are needed."
It has been known for quite some time that some vaccines can cause those problems in some people.
It has also been known for quite some time that Covid itself, causes those problem at a higher rate than the vaccines.
Previously discussed in the big, gigantic, pinned Covid thread.
Please spend a bit of time there, concentrate on what Jaimitto has printed
If you break down the age categories and gender categories, some categories are at higher risks from the vaccine than from the actual virus. This doctor goes over the data more closely:
Spoiler -
4 hours ago, -DLC- said:
I just find it ironic that some suddenly "trust" science and nature when they need them. But when it comes to being proactive, hell no. They turn to other "experts" for their opinions because they trust them instead? Why not for treatment too then?
"Science" rests on very specific measures and parameters which are vital to ensuring safety. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, two of the primary pillars of safety when it comes to pharmaceuticals are rigorous clinical trials prior to the product hitting the market, and legal liability after it is on the market. Both of these were completely demolished for this vaccine (fast tracked trials and indemnification of all vaccine manufacturers), and there is evidence now that it does cause heart and blood complications at a certain rate, source here from Ontario: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1.full . Couple this with it's waning efficacy (which was already dubious, source here from the European Journal of Epidemiology:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7) and I think any reasonable person should be able to understand why some people may decide the vaccine isn't the correct choice.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Just now, JM_ said:
it could just be my psychotic ass talking, but I'd prefer it if my health care workers, you know, chose science.
The science that was fast tracked?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, 4petesake said:
None have been fired. They are on unpaid leave.B.C. health officials said Monday that 3,325 health-care workers, or about 2.6 per cent of the workforce, are not yet vaccinated against COVID-19 and have been placed on unpaid leave.
Health Minister Adrian Dix said that as of midnight Sunday, about 122,000 of B.C.’s 127,500 health-care workers have been fully vaccinated, or almost 96 per cent. Another 2,064 workers have received one dose, while the remainder is not vaccinated and on leave.
Unvaccinated workers in the health-care system have been placed on unpaid leave, and are given until Nov. 15 to get their first dose or get fired.
They were fired on Nov 15th
Here's another one stating that 13 were fired in the Sault Hospital Area in late Nov for not adhering to SAH's vaccine policy.
People absolutely have been fired over this, not just put on unpaid leave.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, JM_ said:
If it were just beds it would be solved. Its the staffing thats the real bottleneck.
I agree, now is not the time to be firing any health care professionals, they are our most valuable assets in this pandemic. It would be an absolute shame if thousands had been fired already over a dubious mandate.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, RussianGas said:
Feel free to watch the video of the entire meeting, here's the link: https://youtu.be/Z1NlhQGVAhw
In case you just jumped into the thread, multiple people here have been advocating that unvaccinated people be turned away from getting medical care because they are unvaccinated. The response you're likely to get is agreement with the health official that punishing the unvaccinated is a greater good since any unvaccinated person amounts to an active threat to society whereby any action to coerce or push them into getting the jab is justified. There is an alarming amount of dishonesty and bad faith in service of this goal, likely due to state of fear people are in, and while this is understandable, I don't think this is excusable.
-
1
-
2
-
-
53 minutes ago, RussianGas said:
Here is a video from the VP of Vancouver Coastal Health explaining at a virtual covid townhall meeting how vaccine passports have nothing to do with decreasing covid transmission: https://youtu.be/Gya-L4am_Xo
Don't worry, I'm sure you're just misrepresenting her, manipulating her exact words, or creating a strawman which will require no further examination.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, JM_ said:
you continue to try to manipulate what I've stated. Its not going to win you any points with anyone.
People who know me on here as a regular know I'm not dishonest. Annoying sure, but not dishonest.
I'm not manipulating anything, In your own words you said "fast tracked"
-
3 hours ago, JM_ said:13 hours ago, Xanlet said:
that you yourself admit was fast tracked which means we don't have accurate information on long term potential side effects,
again with the misinformation campaign. Never said that.
18 hours ago, JM_ said:They were asked by gov'ts to fast track vaccines. To do that they needed reasonable assurance that they would not be held responsible for reasonably unforeseen issues.
I'm now convinced you are simply being dishonest. You stated they were asked to fast track the vaccine, and then in the next post deny that they were fast tracked. I hope at least other posters can see you are coming from a place of rampant dishonesty.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, JM_ said:
extremists require an extreme response sometimes. Anti-vaxxers that want to put people in harms way are extremists.
nope, not legally.
never said that. Try doing this without straw men.
thats not quite accurate. They were asked by gov'ts to fast track vaccines. To do that they needed reasonable assurance that they would not be held responsible for reasonably unforeseen issues. They are still on the hook for acts under their control.
And again with the straw man. Don't take it if you don't want to, I don't care.
Nope you are the one making it political. There's nothing political about basic vaccine science.
The only ones that try to drag people into thinking this is political are the avti-vaxxers. If they don't, they have almost no support.
I don't think you know what "straw man" means. You have directly advocated revoking people's access to public medical services unless they take a vaccine that you yourself admit was fast tracked which means we don't have accurate information on long term potential side effects, which you point to as the grounds for the indemnification. I believe most people would deem your proposal an extreme political stance, the policy of denying people health care for not taking a vaccine which was not subject to the usual standard of trials.
Your claim that your position is "vaccine science" is curious since you are fine with clinical trials being cut short and legal immunity being granted to the manufacturers. Let's be clear here, these are two incredibly important safeguards to ensuring harmful pharmaceutical products don't make it to market, yet both of these fundamental pillars of safety have been removed for this vaccine.
I understand that everyone wants this pandemic to end, and a lot of people put all their eggs in the vaccine basket and have adopted an almost ideological commitment to it, but we need to take into account new information as it becomes available. I hope everyone can stay safe and we can avoid contributing to the division which is intensifying around certain topics like these.
-
1
-
-
Just now, JM_ said:
Why do you create straw men?
No one said that your right of consent should be taken away. Have at it, if thats your decision.
You have advocated for extreme punishments (revoking access to the public medical system among other things). Such a severe form of coercion is contrary to that right. I might ask you, why are you so in favor of increasing the authoritarian power of the government?
I might also add that the manufacturers of this vaccine themselves were unwilling to accept liability for potential side effects, even so far as to refuse to roll out the vaccine unless indemnified, yet you want it to be forcibly mandated on the entire population. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but don't kid yourself that this isn't political.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, JM_ said:
We don't live in a free society. We live in one with the rule of law, which gives us rights and privileges.
One of those rights is for each individual to be able to refuse medical procedures. In fact, that is a fundamental human right which is widely recognized. Why are you so very willing to do away with that? Even the most cursory knowledge of history should be enough for everyone to know why it is an important right to protect.
-
1 hour ago, JM_ said:
if you're overweight thats a personal problem.
The actual hard core anti-vax by choice is only a small % of us. And yet, we see so many people, very often rural and/or right leaning politically, trying to defend them. Why is that?
The anti-vaxers need to drag people into their fight by creating false analogies and "sides' to this thing. There's so few of them, they need to bring others into their fight with fears of "freedoms" or slippery slopes or bad analogies like what about overweight people.
When you stick to the basic facts, the anti-vaxxers have no legitimate argument to make.
We live in a free society. People are free to decide what medicine goes into their body. If you want to live in a dictatorship, head on over to North Korea, I hear it's great there.
As others have mentioned, the vaccine is not effective at stopping the spread, so the only advantage of the shot is to lower symptoms and not take up a bed if you get sick, but as you just stated about obese people, you aren't concerned over that, so there should be no issue.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
I'm really just curious and I'll post this in a few places until we get the numbers.
Is this a coaching issue? Can someone look at players (not Player Name) who have been traded or let go in the last 3 seasons and see what they look like in other systems/different coaches?
If the numbers are positive would that not indicate that coaching is an obvious issue as opposed to ownership, management or the roster?
Super curious if someone has actually done this math and seen what the numbers look like. Seems like it would be glaringly obvious and immediately indicative.
Edler has 10 points in 22 games while last year he had 8 points in 52 games. But of course, we didn't need to keep him at $3.5m, rather trade for a $7.5m guy who will put up 5 points in 25 games
-
1
-
-
The NHL owners profit share, and since Vancouver will always have a dedicated fan base no matter how bad the team is for any amount of time, it's in ownership's financial interest to have American teams do well. Pittsburgh goes bankrupt unless they win the cup every 10 years or so (they've filled for bankruptcy multiple times, each time when attendance had been declining in times of no championships). Same applies for many American teams like Chicago which was dropping in attendance before Kane and Toews were drafted and they won some championships. Most fans don't like talking about this stuff because it's how the sausage gets made, but if you follow the money, it's crystal clear why Canadian teams haven't won anything in almost 30 years. Canadian ownership is incentivized to lose so the American teams don't drag down their profits.
-
1
-
-
If a Canuck did that, the ref would figure out a way to put them down 5 - 3 for 7 minutes. I'm not joking, they've done that before.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I was saying this before his current contract, the guy has never cracked a point per game season (which dozens of players manage every year) and yet the fans here are so starved for real super star power they think he'll magically grow into a 100 point player AFTER signing his big boy contract. You can't do that. You can't sign a player on a hope and a prayer that he will get better later, he should have gotten $6m MAX until he could prove he can put up more than 66 points in a full season.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
[PGT] Tampa Bay Lightning at Vancouver Canucks | Mar. 13, 2022
in Canucks Talk
Posted
They did convert, it's just the ref had other ideas.