Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[Alflives]

21 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

The embarrassment factor of this means that Virtanen has played his last game as a Canuck. The big question now is, will he be able to get another team to take a chance on him.

 

My guess is, if there is enough for this person to feel that she can win a civil suit in court against him, that the Canucks will find enough evidence to justify terminating his contract for violation of the conduct clause.

 

Will be absolutely shocked if he's back next season.

 

burden of proof is a lot less in the civil action.  Might require actual criminal charges to terminate contract.  Or a conviction.

[higgyfan]

9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

burden of proof is a lot less in the civil action.  Might require actual criminal charges to terminate contract.  Or a conviction.

Regardless of his innocence or guilt, I think we have seen his last game.  Just too much drama following him around. Horrible way to end his career in Vancouver.

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

Regardless of his innocence or guilt, I think we have seen his last game.  Just too much drama following him around. Horrible way to end his career in Vancouver.

no value now in trade, so a buyout?  

[VegasCanuck]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

burden of proof is a lot less in the civil action.  Might require actual criminal charges to terminate contract.  Or a conviction.

I believe the code of conduct clause gives some pretty broad discretion. This might not be enough to terminate under that clause, but considering how his contract is structured, @Alflives, most of his money was in the second year of the deal. Canucks would save 2 million in total through a buyout, and they would only have $50,000 cap hit from the buyout for this coming season, and 500,000 for the following season.

 

I think all things considered, Canucks will choose to move on from Virtanen. I think it would cost them more than 3 million to qualify him next summer if they kept him around and I think that number would make him more untradeable that he was already.

 

Really think he's done here at least. If the charges are more substantiated, then he may be done in the NHL as well.

[Curmudgeon]

19 minutes ago, Alflives said:

no value now in trade, so a buyout?  

If he is successfully sued, it is basically an admission that he is guilty. Money will change hands, but Vancouver could probably terminate his contract for cause, so no buyout. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

If he is successfully sued, it is basically an admission that he is guilty. Money will change hands, but Vancouver could probably terminate his contract for cause, so no buyout. 

civil case though requires a lot less proof.  Isn't 51% or something like that?  Not too sure, but thinking Canucks can't terminate on a civil matter.  would need to be a criminal case.  If the police find enough evidence for the crown to file criminal charges, then that would likely be grounds.  If the crown doesn't file charges, then Jake might need to be bought out.  

[Curmudgeon]

52 minutes ago, Alflives said:

civil case though requires a lot less proof.  Isn't 51% or something like that?  Not too sure, but thinking Canucks can't terminate on a civil matter.  would need to be a criminal case.  If the police find enough evidence for the crown to file criminal charges, then that would likely be grounds.  If the crown doesn't file charges, then Jake might need to be bought out.  

I believe the burden of proof in a civil case has something to do with "balance of probabilities" which is less than in criminal cases where it is "innocent until proven guilty". Balance of probabilities means "based on all evidence, the alleged action probably took place." If Jake settles out of court, we'll never know if it actually happened, but no matter what there will always be those who are ready to cancel Jake and demand the Canucks get rid of him. Regardless of how Vancouver does it, they will almost certainly find a way to move Jake. If he were a 30 goal scorer and top line player, someone would find room for him. As it is, I doubt an NHL team would take on the headache.

[bigbadcanucks]

On 5/10/2021 at 1:43 PM, shayster007 said:

Had to borrow my wife's stitch ripper, but was able to salvage my favorite hat. I spent years defending his play on the ice, but no chance after his off ice behavior.

Glad you could salvage your hat...

 

Like you, I was a supporter of Virtanen until this season when I became entirely indifferent to him as a hockey player.  If this is the way his career ends that's 100% on him. Like I've said in this thread before the allegations became public, Virtanen's cap savings, whether as a ED loss (which isn't going to happen now) or buy-out or now a termination, is waaaaaaay more valuable than Virtanen himself to the Canucks.

 

I feel really bad for his parents.  They seem like such nice folks and no parent deserves to be embarrassed like the way they have been (guilty or not).

[Kootenay Gold]

1 hour ago, Curmudgeon said:

I believe the burden of proof in a civil case has something to do with "balance of probabilities" which is less than in criminal cases where it is "innocent until proven guilty". Balance of probabilities means "based on all evidence, the alleged action probably took place." If Jake settles out of court, we'll never know if it actually happened, but no matter what there will always be those who are ready to cancel Jake and demand the Canucks get rid of him. Regardless of how Vancouver does it, they will almost certainly find a way to move Jake. If he were a 30 goal scorer and top line player, someone would find room for him. As it is, I doubt an NHL team would take on the headache.

If he can not be traded which is very likely; then he will be bought out. I just do not see him on this team next year. There are other players such as Podkolzin that will take his place.

 Saves on cap as well.

 

[guntrix]

3 hours ago, Alflives said:

civil case though requires a lot less proof.  Isn't 51% or something like that?  Not too sure, but thinking Canucks can't terminate on a civil matter.  would need to be a criminal case.  If the police find enough evidence for the crown to file criminal charges, then that would likely be grounds.  If the crown doesn't file charges, then Jake might need to be bought out.  

Even if it involves sexual assault? Surely there's a clause in his contract that covers that too.

[#Canucks]

10 minutes ago, guntrix said:

Even if it involves sexual assault? Surely there's a clause in his contract that covers that too.

I don’t agree with sexual assault. But if it was serious he would be criminally charged. A civil matter would be someone looking for money or something for an incident. Not sure you can terminate based on that. Buy him out get it over with. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by #Canucks

[MeanSeanBean]

4 minutes ago, #Canucks said:

I don’t agree with sexual assault. But if it was serious he would be criminally charged. A civil matter would be someone looking for money or something for an incident. Not sure you can terminate based on that. Buy him out get it over with. 

Has nothing to do with being serious are not. Only 12% of sexual assaults reported to police see through to prosecution. That's a absurdly low percentage. From what I read about the victim she has missed work, suffers from anxiety and PTSD from the event and it has changed her life. Knowing that a criminal prosecution is unlikely she may just be seeking retribution to pay for the therapy I'm sure she is receiving and missed wages at work. It's likely it has nothing to to with severity at all.

[Alflives]

20 minutes ago, guntrix said:

Even if it involves sexual assault? Surely there's a clause in his contract that covers that too.

Needs to be evidence, right?  If there is clear evidence, then the crown will bring criminal charges.  Otherwise is it legally sexual assault?  I’m not sure how that works.  

[guntrix]

51 minutes ago, #Canucks said:

I don’t agree with sexual assault. But if it was serious he would be criminally charged. A civil matter would be someone looking for money or something for an incident. Not sure you can terminate based on that. Buy him out get it over with. 

I was thinking along the lines of shayster. Doubt there's much evidence at this point, to which she'd in all likelihood go for a settlement. But like Alf said, in the scenario where it successfully goes through civil, I'm not sure how it would work. Someone would need to have in-depth knowledge of Jake's contract and what would constitute a violation/breach.  

[MystifyNCrucify]

@shayster007

 

Virtanens case notwithstanding, you realize why only “12%” of sexual assault charges are followed through with right?

 

I can say that joey joe junior shabbadoo from mill woods touched my wee wee one time i was on a slide in the playground. I can get a lawyer on retainer and make a charge....

 

Joey joe joe gave me pstd and now im allergic to red twirly slides. 

 

Obviously i am lying. Your twelve percent “should” also take into account the fact that the world is made up of 50 percent males as well. 

 

I have been assaulted by a female, and when i brought it to the authorities i got told to sort my $&!# and get over it. 

 

Fook this societal policy of “believing whenever a woman cries” crap. Its demeaning, and makes the real injustices go unpunished. 

[MeanSeanBean]

29 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

@shayster007

 

Virtanens case notwithstanding, you realize why only “12%” of sexual assault charges are followed through with right?

 

I can say that joey joe junior shabbadoo from mill woods touched my wee wee one time i was on a slide in the playground. I can get a lawyer on retainer and make a charge....

 

Joey joe joe gave me pstd and now im allergic to red twirly slides. 

 

Obviously i am lying. Your twelve percent “should” also take into account the fact that the world is made up of 50 percent males as well. 

 

I have been assaulted by a female, and when i brought it to the authorities i got told to sort my $&!# and get over it. 

 

Fook this societal policy of “believing whenever a woman cries” crap. Its demeaning, and makes the real injustices go unpunished. 

I'm sorry you had to experience that. That's not okay and no one should have to go through that.

 

I can't tell what the point you're trying to make is though. How I interpreted your post is that that number is so low because people lie or cry wolf? If that's the point you are trying to make then I completely disagree with you.

 

The number is so low because it's an extremely difficult thing to prove. Unless a victim immediately seeks medical intervention after an assult there is likely no tangible evidence to support someone's claims. If anything our society has only recently startes to take these claims seriously after generations of this behaviour going primarily unpunished. The countless number of woman who report something of this manor over time who have been completely dissmissed is likely astronomical. Not to even touch on the fact that so many parts of the world still find this behavior generally acceptable.

 

To touch on the male vs female point you for some reason brought into this. According to the department of Justice 70% of men didn't report a sexual assult, in comparison to the 59% of woman. From what I can tell those numbers evened out when reporting to police instead of just a general report. While a discretion does exist, it's not nearly as wide as you seem to be applying. Further more, the Department of Justice reports over 83% of sexual assaults never get reported at all. Of those small amounts that do, only 12% see prosecution. That is an insane number of people who never find justice. And that 12% is the number of actual prosecutions, regardless of gender. A criminal case is a criminal case regardless of who's involved.

 

Lastly, beilving what people say isn't demeaning, it's a basic human right that all people should have. 

 

And since you engaged in this conversation, here is the resources I used to draw my conclusions. Straight from the government

 

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54870-eng.htm

 

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2019/apr01.html

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by shayster007

[Ghostsof1915]

Is there a scenario that we can trade Jake (I know he has little value) and something else to Winnipeg for PLD? I know PLD is not living up to expectations. 

At least maybe he can work on face-offs and we'd have a serviceable 2nd line centre? If needed we can move Bo to third line duty. And 2nd unit power play to give the

team some more options?

 

[D-Money]

45 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Is there a scenario that we can trade Jake (I know he has little value) and something else to Winnipeg for PLD?

 

Sure, if the “something else” is Pettersson or Hughes. 

 

Winnipeg gave up a lot for Dubois. Don’t see them flipping the switch and trading him away for anything less than an overpayment.

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Is there a scenario that we can trade Jake (I know he has little value) and something else to Winnipeg for PLD? I know PLD is not living up to expectations. 

At least maybe he can work on face-offs and we'd have a serviceable 2nd line centre? If needed we can move Bo to third line duty. And 2nd unit power play to give the

team some more options?

 

Seriously, how long does it take to get a statement and conclude this investigation? If she says he was out of line then lay charges. I suspect someone wants to play politics with the situation. 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Boudrias said:

Seriously, how long does it take to get a statement and conclude this investigation? If she says he was out of line then lay charges. I suspect someone wants to play politics with the situation. 

if Jake says "I have no idea who this person is" it may take a long time. Are there still hotel records? phone data? you'd have to get someone searching for all of that, could take quite a while and you still don't know what actually happened.