**Why would Anyone Want to play for Vancouver?**

[winacup]

LOL, you are a joke. No, we are not the most hated. That would still be the Laffs.

Canucks turned themselves into contenders, and all the pathetic haters got upset by that and started getting more vocal about it. If we were losing, no one would care about us.

[Canuck or Die]

we're still a losing franchise as we have not won a single cup.

[5minutesinthebox]

Hamhuis signing here was totally reliant upon his 'coming home'.His family is not in Dallas,he is a B.C. boy and the lower mainland is Malholtra's wife's home.

Yes,you plainly said Ehrhoff was traded for but included him in your 'highly sought after free agent list'-which he clearly was not.

Ehrhoff was offered the same money as Bieksa,whom is clearly not Dan Hamhuis.This team sucked without Ehrhoff.

Samuelsson is a playoff warrior,a Stanley Cup winner and a player that is to be reckoned with.Gillis instead brings in a player that is suffering head injuries and does not compliment Kes or the Sedins and the cap gets hurt,as well. Another brilliant move.

Torres was the only player on this team that commanded respect and inflicted punishment and fear.Who else on this team did that?

Opened up the ice? Made the opposition think twice as they dumped the puck to a Canuck? Nobody.

Your argument is plain -you state Gillis signed all these highly sought after free agents.

True,and then he lost three of the five you mention and the two that remain have local ties and signed here regardless of Gillis.

Finally,I found your arguement as having some merit but your dictation could use some polish:

"Just reading the jibberish you spew is incredibly annoying.

You are so misinformed it hurts.

Shut your yap, your letting all of the stupid out.

I am soooo tired of listening to these apparent insiders who know everything...

Wake up.

What a load of crap.

Im going to fill you in on something.

Listen carefully."

CDC journalism at it's finest.

[nuck nit]

I love your way of thinking 'FiveMinutes in the Box'.

You gravitate towards some belief that CDC is grade school lessons and I must adhere to some standards you set out for me?

Bud,I live half of every year in a third world country where university graduates with ten years of professional experience make $10 per day-if they are lucky.Most have spoken and especially written english that makes the average CDC'er look foolish,including me.

Since you clearly have the inside scoop on what it takes to be an NHL General Manager I will leave you to do the job.

Send my regards to Mikey dearest and please don't let the Gillis minions get out of line.

[Gollumpus]

Gump,

The issue is not a simple matter of obvious concern.It is illness,associated diseases and early death-for starters.

We are not talking MCL's or cartilage tears.

Concussions have different grades attached to them and every person (or in this instance,player) is effected differently.

Concussions are cumulative in nature.That means a person suffers a brain injury and the symptoms may or may not dissipate to the point where he or she feels 'better' or even 'normal' but the brain damage does not disappear.When a person or player suffers consecutive injuries the brain damage is multiplied-and so are the chances of future diseases and early death.

Booth ,for example,has had three known and serious head injuries/brain injuries.Loss of Consciousness (LoC) accompanied one of the brain injuries.That is usually a significant indication of severe brain injury.

Daniel Sedin has had one diagnosed brain injury that did not include an LoC ,if you want to begin to make comparisons or assumptions.

No,it is not my position that players whom have suffered one concussion retire.I have never said that or will say that.

The basis of my understanding is that Booth has had multiple,serious DIAGNOSED brain injuries ,including an LoC brain injury.

If GM's and their owners were better educated or had personal experience and education they would never,ever trade for a player with that extent of brain injuries and damage.Period.

Money will sort them all out in the end.The insurers will stop covering concussed players and then all of a sudden the whole pro league level will sort out rather quickly who is able to play and who will not.

Sidney Crosby does not get a deal til he retires if Mario has to fund Sid's salary and Sid is forced to leave the game next year,for example.

Head injuries at the pro level are at an exponential rate of being recognised and reported.Soon,so will be the education and awareness levels.

Samulesson was brought in as a second liner and was paid accordingly.Booth is being paid much more and has serious medical liabilities attached.One of these two players is a hit,fall or accident away from leaving the game,altogether.It is not Samuelsson.

That makes the trade a complete mystery to me.

[nuck nit]

"If we want to discuss whether Booth should never have been acquired in the first place, I think that is a separate question..."Gump

Gump,you do not want to discuss whether Booth should have been acquired ,at all.

That has been the basis of my discussion but now you deem it to be not relevant.I see.

Due to serious medical concerns,firstly,his LARGE($4.5 million -$4.75 million in 2014) salary- considering his precarious health status - and then whether or not he even fits on this team(should he remain healthy enough to continue his career) are additional topics of conversation that are highly trade specific.

Samuelsson was paid $2.5 and is half of Booth's salary and none of the risk.

With a plethora of free agents available Gillis.org spends 4.5 million clams on a three time brain injured winger that did not compliment his centre man on many nights.Super.

The team had a solid winger that was not a medical liability as Booth is and Gillis .org went out and paid near double for a winger that also has had one 30 goal season and is arguably a similar winger for the Canucks.

There is a world of healthy free agents.Why take a large risk -at all? It is medically ignorant and irresponsible to have taken Booth on.

As long as the NHL owners and GM's remain ignorant on this subject I doubt the fan base will clue in any quicker.

[riffraff]

"If we want to discuss whether Booth should never have been acquired in the first place, I think that is a separate question..."Gump

Gump,you do not want to discuss whether Booth should have been acquired ,at all.

That has been the basis of my discussion but now you deem it to be not relevant.I see.

Due to serious medical concerns,firstly,his LARGE($4.5 million -$4.75 million in 2014) salary- considering his precarious health status - and then whether or not he even fits on this team(should he remain healthy enough to continue his career) are additional topics of conversation that are highly trade specific.

Samuelsson was paid $2.5 and is half of Booth's salary and none of the risk.

With a plethora of free agents available Gillis.org spends 4.5 million clams on a three time brain injured winger that did not compliment his centre man on many nights.Super.

The team had a solid winger that was not a medical liability as Booth is and Gillis .org went out and paid near double for a winger that also has had one 30 goal season and is arguably a similar winger for the Canucks.

There is a world of healthy free agents.Why take a large risk -at all? It is medically ignorant and irresponsible to have taken Booth on.

As long as the NHL owners and GM's remain ignorant on this subject I doubt the fan base will clue in any quicker.

[nuck nit]

My view is there has to be a designated third party that constantly evaluates and legislates which players are able to go on 'risking' their lives.

The players cannot quit doing what they love for the money at the NHL level and the teams do not understand or accept the damage they are allowing to create.

When the insurers decide that the teams must accept the full fiscal liabilities of brain injured employees salaries,present and future medical costs and full reparations then this nonsense ends over night.

Managers can claim ignorance and take a flyer if they are not fully liable.

[SkeeterHansen]

My view is there has to be a designated third party that constantly evaluates and legislates which players are able to go on 'risking' their lives.

The players cannot quit doing what they love for the money at the NHL level and the teams do not understand or accept the damage they are allowing to create.

When the insurers decide that the teams must accept the full fiscal liabilities of brain injured employees salaries,present and future medical costs and full reparations then this nonsense ends over night.

Managers can claim ignorance and take a flyer if they are not fully liable.

[Jason Garrison]

Because the management is logical and understanding, players are treated incredibly well, the fans are passionate (the real ones, not the bandwagoners and rioters), we have a very good team full of skilled players and great dressing room guys... The list goes on bud.

[Gollumpus]

Gump,you do not want to discuss whether Booth should have been acquired ,at all.

That has been the basis of my discussion but now you deem it to be not relevant.I see.

Due to serious medical concerns,firstly,his LARGE($4.5 million -$4.75 million in 2014) salary- considering his precarious health status - and then whether or not he even fits on this team(should he remain healthy enough to continue his career) are additional topics of conversation that are highly trade specific.

Samuelsson was paid $2.5 and is half of Booth's salary and none of the risk.

With a plethora of free agents available Gillis.org spends 4.5 million clams on a three time brain injured winger that did not compliment his centre man on many nights.Super.

The team had a solid winger that was not a medical liability as Booth is and Gillis .org went out and paid near double for a winger that also has had one 30 goal season and is arguably a similar winger for the Canucks.

There is a world of healthy free agents.Why take a large risk -at all? It is medically ignorant and irresponsible to have taken Booth on.

As long as the NHL owners and GM's remain ignorant on this subject I doubt the fan base will clue in any quicker.

[Gollumpus]

My view is there has to be a designated third party that constantly evaluates and legislates which players are able to go on 'risking' their lives.

The players cannot quit doing what they love for the money at the NHL level and the teams do not understand or accept the damage they are allowing to create.

When the insurers decide that the teams must accept the full fiscal liabilities of brain injured employees salaries,present and future medical costs and full reparations then this nonsense ends over night.

Managers can claim ignorance and take a flyer if they are not fully liable.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Saw this after my previous post.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the spirit of this, however, I would ask:

1.) How would you hope to implement such a thing if the NHL, the individual teams and the NHLPA do not want to play along?

2.) Who appoints this "third party", the insurance companies? The legal costs of each and every challenge will be staggering.

3.) Would they only be restricted to head injuries? What about eyes and knees?

You suggest that the insurers will decide that enough is enough. I suggest that the players and the teams will come up with a different course of action, one which tells the insurance companies to go screw themselves.

regards,

G.

[riffraff]

safe to say there would be no more crosby at this point if all this third party stuff was in place......no "face of the NHL"?

it'll never happen.

not saying it shouldn't happen.

rules(penalties etc.) need to change first before some lawyer/doctor decides the fate of the game.

the nfl can do it. so should the nhl be able to do it.

[Gollumpus]

Not to argue against where our discussion is currently at, but rather to try and explore one possible direction to which this situation could lead: I see openings for lawsuits on a massive scale.

1.) If a player's medical advice says he can play, and the team's medical advice says he can play, what if this third party says he can't play? (And yes, there is the potential for medical advice to be pro to the player playing if he has a bigger contract/is an important player to the game, such as Crosby.)

2.) What if the player believes he is still "not right", but the team and this third party says he is? Does the team sue the player? Are the player's benefits suspended? Does the player then sue the team and the NHL?

3.) If a Crosby does sustain a career ending injury, and he gets his contract paid out, does he have any opportunity to sue the offending player (ie. the guy who hit him) for lost future earnings?

In situations where said injury occurs on the first hit, then target should be clear. What about guys like Crosby who have had more than one concussion? Is the guy who applied the final hit the one who is at fault, or are all of the guys who ever hit Crosby liable on some level and therefore have to share a portion of the blame and lawsuit?

4.) If a player has been deemed unfit to play, and receives a payout, is he done in the NHL forever?

There has been at least one instance where a player has received a settlement from what was considered to be a career ending injury. Brian Berard received $6.5 million due to an eye injury and was deemed unfit to play. After a period of time (and several operations), Berard was deemed to meet the minimum vision standards required by the NHL, he returned his settlement and signed as a free agent, playing in the NHL for another six seasons.

Now, yes we are talking an eye rather than a concussion, however I believe Berard's situation leaves the door open for players who would want to come back and play after having been deemed unfit.

regards,

G.