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

iinatcc

Members
  • Posts

    6,252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by iinatcc

  1. The LGBTQ community has been basically ignored and died die to the AIDS epidemic w minimal or little support for more than a decade and no one bats an eye. But now LGBTQ+ community trying to make themselves public with events like Pride Month or special awareness days, so that's now a problem? Religious Christians usually don't have a shirt on saying they love Jesus but they sure have a lot of buildings and huge structures expressing their beliefs. To be honest I think this more narcissistic than wearing a shirt
  2. It's similar to why not "all lives matter?" argument. You blanket everyone into one group and therefore don't awknowledge or understand what specific groups of people go through and the support they need from the community. it's a mindset of Privilege where you can pretend everything is fine with one generic statement
  3. To all the people saying "it's to protect the hockey players" and "what about the players who refuse to wear it and face public scrutiny" Well they made their choice and every choice has consequences. They refuse to do something as simple as wearing a warm up Jersey show support and solidarity they will get backlash. As it is their choice not to year it, people are also free to form their opinion on this matter. But really are we really concerned about these players? They have earned (or earning) millions in their career by having the Privilege in playing hockey in the greatest and most profitable league in the world and people are defending this move by the NHL partly so the players won't face any criticism? Boo Hoo for them totally much worse than a community of people who either have experienced or experiencing discrimination and bullying. Glad to know the players and NHL has the privilege to just shrug this off, pretty much shows where their priorities are and exposes the league as using this community as nothing but a PR stunt.
  4. That's the thing if the NHL didn't have the courage to stand by this through thick and thin why even start in the first place? If the NHL really did care about these causes they should have held their ground here and taken a stand to unconditionally support these causes. The NHL's reaction on this really shows their true colors. But, to be honest, we have seen recently how rotten the NHL really is.
  5. the bar for the definition of "woke" is very low when it involves compromising pride events
  6. In the end this is consistent with how the NHL has been in recent memory ... gutless
  7. Reports were that the Blues didn't really want to be there. You could see this with the way they played their placement matches. Vancouver was probably playing the Blues at 60% Vancouver was lucky to reach 7 games and that was all on Demko. Canucks has nothing left in the series against Vegas.
  8. That is true. We all know how FA likes to retool on the fly. Having said that there were successful retools done recently that show even if Benning wasn't allowed to tear it all down it is possible. Some examples are the recent LA Kings, New York Rangers, and the Blues when they won the 2019 Stanley Cup. Even the Bruins have been retooling for more than a decade now and have been successful doing it.
  9. In the end Benning still got assets out of those players. Edler not but even w/o trading him Benning had enough tradeable assets to get picks and players to build the team long term. I think that was Drance's point. People seem to exaggerate how much what Gillis left behind was a determent to Benning's time as GM. Which I agree with, when you have 8 years to run a team you can't use the excuse that the previous GM did something to hinder the current guy.
  10. I bolded the three points I am not comfortable with using the term "simply eliminating the issue". I like how privilege the NHL is then by sweeping things under the rug by doing less in supporting the LBGTQ community yet there's probably people in that said community that have faced a lifetime of discrimination. But hey at least the NHL don't have to worry about any PR issues right? There's always Angry people on both sides. There's the left and the right (who may add have been more violent and aggressive ) so are we just going to stop doing something for a good cause because it would stir some controversy with people? Seems like the NHL are more concerned protecting their brand than anything else. Historically sports was never just about the games. Sports always had a socio-political component as far back as the Roman empire with the Colosseum games. I find it strange how people seem to think sports and social political issues is a new thing. So promoting these issues by wearing special warm up Jerseys or other evens is nothing new.
  11. Players were never forced though (I mean if they were forced Jesus folks like Reimer and the Staals would have worn them). They could have kept things the way it was and let gave players an option to wear them. It's good that these special are still going but what it shows here is that the NHL is willing to compromise on these nights that bring awareness and support to people (sometimes marginalized) once the pressure is on. Can you imagine caving in to Millionäre hockey players to make events less special for normal people that are discriminated and bullied. I just hope, in the futtre, that the NHL doesn't grow in a market that will force them to abandon certain events due to market pressures.
  12. Well if players chose not to wear the jersey then people have the right to form their opinions on them. Plus if the players feel bad about being demonizing im sure they can sleep better in their million of dollars they get each year and their privaledge. Why is this a bad look for the NHL. Simple it shows that when push comes to shove, the NHL is going to cave on this issue. Jerseys may seem like a small thing but what if more pressure comes to the NHL on this issue? I.e pressure from markets or sponsors, are they going to this cowards way out again?
  13. Yeah if individual players do not want to wear the jersey it's their choice. But for the NHL to completely back down on this is kind of a joke. I hope the NHL does something in those evening to raise awareness in the opening ceremony. It's the least they could do.
  14. That part I get but it's very normal for GM to ask players to waive their NTC. Especially in their expiring years Having said that it's a moot point since even if Benning couldn't or didn't want to move Edler early in his tenure as GM. The picks he acquired was still enough to kickstart the team in rebuilding or retooling.
  15. Yes. I don't even blame Benning for this. But it's Situation like this you feel like the hockey gods were conspiring for Benning to fail as a GM If you think about the odds for this actually happening where Benning is the one that loses big time on a trade was very slim. There's a 34% chance a player drafted in the 2nd round becomes an NHL player much less a top player.
  16. Most Players have an NTC at that point in their career though. The fact Benning couldn't convince Edler is still a failure on his part.
  17. Thomas Drance actually debunked that belief that Benning was put in a tough position inheriting what Gillis left. And he has a point. Even if the prospect pool was quite empty, Benning had tradable assets in the current roster. Kesler, Garrison, Bieksa, Hansen, Edler and Hamhius were all tradeable if he wanted to go that direction and Benning did have a pretty good amount of cap space heading to free agency and a compliance buyout was still available at the time. Heck he had 2 first round picks and additional 2nd and 3rd round picks n his initial draft when he traded Garrison and Kesler. It's on Benning for flipping the picks to Vey and Dorsett, selecting Virtanen and giving up on McCann So it's kind of an overblown narrative that Benning inherited a bad situation. He had all the assets in his arsenal to stockpile on assets to help rebuild / retool this team within 2 to 3 years time.
  18. From what I hear Barvashev probably going to demand 5+ million with that term. Either that or 4.5 x 6 yrs
  19. I'm disappointed this thread hasn't reached the monster 111 page Tucker Poolman signing thread
  20. I have no sources but something tells me that something went down with the American born players in the Flames lockerroom. In the work environment people talk in the watercooler or pantry and you get ideas from the people you talk to. I would not be surprised if one of the American players brought up wanting to leave Calgary to play in the US and gave the other players the same idea. Because even Winnipeg does a better job keeping American born players in their organization than Calgary.
  21. But that's the whole ballgame in the NHL you can't separate the player with his contract. Especially in a hard cap environment. Your value is relative to not just your perform but AAV cap hit. There's no separating both with the way the NHL operates. This is what, I think, Benning never understood. Especially with Beagle. Was Beagle a good player for the Canucks? Yes especially on the PK and Faceoffs. Was he worth the value of his contract? nope.
  22. It's not so much if he's injured or not rather it's how his performance will be after his recovery. 70% of the OEL the Canucks have now is not a good thing especially with that contract. Reality is that it is a short term decision. It's to have cap room to make moves to help this core. But the option really was buy out OEL and have the cap space to help this team or don't buy him and hence you will have 7+ million in cap space during the prime years of Pettersson and Hughes making it harder to build a team around them. There was no good decision with OEL, just the bad the decision that makes the most sense. And if you believe in this young core then this was the only option.
  23. I don't think there's such a thing as forceful endorsement though.
×
×
  • Create New...