[Report] Canucks announce coaching staff updates

[BPA]

6 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Ya thats obvious. But its not that every team who makes the playoffs has an equal chance of winning the cup either. You still have to be a deep, talented team. Luck with injuries, consistent top tier goaltending, defensive effectiveness, and consistent secondary scoring from your depth players all play important roles. 

 

The cost of trying to make the playoffs every year, which usually means reactionary moves in the short term and cap handcuffing at the expense of long term sustainability and cap flexibility, is the problem with the "just get to the playoffs and anything can happen" theory. Its simply not fact. Every team that has won the SC had more than just luck and hope.

 

Playoff experience is important. But so is building your team the right way. 

 

The Canucks under Benning arent usually good enough to even make the playoffs, despite his constant reactionary moves to try to get there. And the few times they have they were not actually cup competitive. 

There's another not often talked about way.  It's called having the Refs in your back pocket.  Just ask Boston (in 2011) and Vegas.

 

Lol.

[-DLC-]

8 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

What he should have said is what teams that scraped into the playoffs who werent actually a deep, talented team (rather than just underachieved in the regular season) have won cups.

 

That is not an accurate description of the Canucks after all. And the answer to that question is 0.

 

Winning the Stanley Cup is very hard. You need more than luck.

Here's the issue for me:  the label

 

"deep, talented team"

 

On paper, many had Toronto and Edmonton in the mix.  On paper doesn't mean anything in the end.

 

To win a cup, everything has to line up at the same time:  goaltending, staying injury free, officiating/fair chance to succeed, scoring, and yes...luck.  Tenacity and desire drive the motor.  The team that wants to win the most and is willing to put it all out there has a chance.  

 

You've listed some of those things that NO team, despite how "deep or talented", can avoid or fully control.  (I hadn't read your last post when I typed this).  I feel like you've just adopted a fairly negative view of the team and aren't getting past that.  It's more about proving a theory ... something about a team that's so far off but all teams are "in progress".  Healthy Petey is a difference maker and I wonder if you watched Hoglander and how he plays the game?  With confidence and skill?  The team changes over time but your stance doesn't.  

 

Ignore what they did last year because:  ?  ("The Canucks under Benning arent usually good enough to even make the playoffs") ,Ignore what happened this year with scheduling and COVID because:  ?

 

You think it can be mapped out with precision:   do x, y and z....but I feel it's you who misses the difficulty in actually getting there.  That it isn't THAT easy and a team that starts gathering momentum can go further than anticipated.

 

Paper isn't a guarantee....Vegas looked quite awful right after the series with us.  These are human beings....if they are "off", it matters.  The flipside...a team that's "on" can have results that can surprise you.

 

Your description of the Canucks isn't THE description...because you do disregard what they were able to do last year and some of the pieces that are in place.  They took Vegas to 7 games...doesn't matter HOW, just matters that they did.  That's not far away from where you need to be.

 

Mostly, I feel that everyone in synch and on the same page as a team is critical in playoffs....playing as a well oiled machine.  "Chemistry" matters a whole lot.   Generating momentum is huge.

 

You keep talking in definitives...like we couldn't possibly.  Some of us know how hard it is but also how, once you get "in" and get motoring with some momentum, anything can happen.

[Boudrias]

6 hours ago, 4petesake said:

The Habs traded a 3rd, 2 5ths, a 7th and a prospect for Merrill, Gustafson and Staal  (3 UFAs) and just barely scraped into the playoffs after floundering most of the year and finishing only 3 games over .500. This after missing the playoffs in three of the last five years and losing in the first round the other two. They are at max cap and now have 15 pending UFA & RFAs at the end of the year.

 

Here they are starting a series against the team that the Canucks took to a seventh game last year, that if they win, will play for the Stanley Cup. Ask their fans if they think these short-term reactionary cap-handcuffing moves were worth the risk. I think they are pretty damn thrilled with this opportunity. Just as thrilled as we would have been after trading Schaller, Madden and a 2nd for Toffoli if we would have beaten Vegas in that seventh game.

The main reason the Canucks took Vegas to 7 games last year was all on Demko. The rest of the team were there for the ride.

[tas]

10 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

The main reason the Canucks took Vegas to 7 games last year was all on Demko. The rest of the team were there for the ride.

last I checked goalies were part of the team. 

[4petesake]

15 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

The main reason the Canucks took Vegas to 7 games last year was all on Demko. The rest of the team were there for the ride.

Demko was absolutely the main reason but your last line negates and disrespects the efforts of every other guy on the team. There were others who played really well. Among them check out Edler at +4 in the series, Horvat with 4 goals, Miller’s points & Hughes’ offence. 
 

 

[stawns]

2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

The main reason the Canucks took Vegas to 7 games last year was all on Demko. The rest of the team were there for the ride.

so?

[mordekai]

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

so?

Cause goalies aren’t part of a team! Don’t you know that??? 
but is ok for coilers to ride on Mcjesus into the playoffs 

[wallstreetamigo]

3 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Here's the issue for me:  the label

 

"deep, talented team"

 

On paper, many had Toronto and Edmonton in the mix.  On paper doesn't mean anything in the end.

 

To win a cup, everything has to line up at the same time:  goaltending, staying injury free, officiating/fair chance to succeed, scoring, and yes...luck.  Tenacity and desire drive the motor.  The team that wants to win the most and is willing to put it all out there has a chance.  

 

You've listed some of those things that NO team, despite how "deep or talented", can avoid or fully control.  (I hadn't read your last post when I typed this).  I feel like you've just adopted a fairly negative view of the team and aren't getting past that.  It's more about proving a theory ... something about a team that's so far off but all teams are "in progress".  Healthy Petey is a difference maker and I wonder if you watched Hoglander and how he plays the game?  With confidence and skill?  The team changes over time but your stance doesn't.  

 

Ignore what they did last year because:  ?  ("The Canucks under Benning arent usually good enough to even make the playoffs") ,Ignore what happened this year with scheduling and COVID because:  ?

 

You think it can be mapped out with precision:   do x, y and z....but I feel it's you who misses the difficulty in actually getting there.  That it isn't THAT easy and a team that starts gathering momentum can go further than anticipated.

 

Paper isn't a guarantee....Vegas looked quite awful right after the series with us.  These are human beings....if they are "off", it matters.  The flipside...a team that's "on" can have results that can surprise you.

 

Your description of the Canucks isn't THE description...because you do disregard what they were able to do last year and some of the pieces that are in place.  They took Vegas to 7 games...doesn't matter HOW, just matters that they did.  That's not far away from where you need to be.

 

Mostly, I feel that everyone in synch and on the same page as a team is critical in playoffs....playing as a well oiled machine.  "Chemistry" matters a whole lot.   Generating momentum is huge.

 

You keep talking in definitives...like we couldn't possibly.  Some of us know how hard it is but also how, once you get "in" and get motoring with some momentum, anything can happen.

You are clearly missing the point. I said literally very little of what you are claiming I did. 

 

I never said the Canucks dont have some good players. I said they dont - at this point - have enough to be considered a competitive cup team. Been true Benning's entire tenure actually. Not sure how thats some heinous negative view of the team. Its simply true.

 

They won one playoff round last year. It takes 4 to win a cup. You say they took Vegas to 7 games which shows how much of a cup conpetitor they are. Did you watch any games in that series? The Canucks were dominated start to finish. Goaltending was the only reason that wasnt over in 5 at best. If you think any goalie could play the way Demko did for those 3 games for 4 playoff rounds you are delusional. 

 

How many teams with a bottom 6 that cannot provide any offense at all or play shutdown defense has won a Stanley Cup? None. You need contributions from your whole lineup. 

 

How many teams without a true 2 way top pairing quality dman has won a cup? None. 

 

Teams win cups, not individual players. And there is certainly luck involved (as I actually previously said). No cup winner has relied only on luck with an inferior roster to win a cup. If you dont think the Canucks have an inferior roster most of the last 7 years, you clearly arent objective. And if you think someone pointing out the reality is some kind of "hate" its not. Its simply reality.

 

If you arent realistic about your weaknesses and your shortcomings as a team you are never going to be able to fix them. Actually, thats the reason the Canucks dont. Because they dont ever admit it even when they simply are not good enough. 

 

Anyone who thinks the current Canucks roster could luck its way through 4 rounds and win a cup is delusional and has clearly never watched playoff hockey. No scoring from the bottom 6 us no team toughness = EP, Boeser, and Hughes all probably injured by cheap shots because the team holds no one accountable.

[wallstreetamigo]

9 hours ago, 4petesake said:

The Habs traded a 3rd, 2 5ths, a 7th and a prospect for Merrill, Gustafson and Staal  (3 UFAs) and just barely scraped into the playoffs after floundering most of the year and finishing only 3 games over .500. This after missing the playoffs in three of the last five years and losing in the first round the other two. They are at max cap and now have 15 pending UFA & RFAs at the end of the year.

 

Here they are starting a series against the team that the Canucks took to a seventh game last year, that if they win, will play for the Stanley Cup. Ask their fans if they think these short-term reactionary cap-handcuffing moves were worth the risk. I think they are pretty damn thrilled with this opportunity. Just as thrilled as we would have been after trading Schaller, Madden and a 2nd for Toffoli if we would have beaten Vegas in that seventh game.

Here's where you miss the point. The Canucks short term reactionary moves have not only sacrificed the future they have also not actually made the team more competitive in the short term. Hence it being a terrible plan.

 

Paying a 3rd, 2 5ths, and a 7th for 3 rentals is different than paying a 2nd and a good prospect for 1 rental. Especially when your team is not anywhere close to being built for a long playoff run like the Canucks.

 

The habs are also getting secondary scoring from their bottom 6 (which is much better than the Canucks bottom 6), solid defensive play from their entire D (which has been a train wreck for the Canucks under this coaching group), and getting consistent top flight goaltending. They have certainly had some luck as well. But they are a much better built team than the Canucks. 

 

Like you said though, their short term moves will cause significant cap concerns soon. If they dont win the cup this year it did sacrifice some of their future.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 hours ago, BPA said:

There's another not often talked about way.  It's called having the Refs in your back pocket.  Just ask Boston (in 2011) and Vegas.

 

Lol.

Officiating plays a role. 

 

In 2011 the officiating (and head office) were pretty sketchy. But its tough to completely blame the refs. The Canucks had their chances on the PP. They scored 8 goals in 7 games. They played a perimeter game and simply could not solve Thomas.

 

Vegas gets away with a lot. But they also move their feet and play aggressive which makes it easier for refs to let them get away with it.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Here's the issue for me:  the label

 

"deep, talented team"

 

On paper, many had Toronto and Edmonton in the mix.  On paper doesn't mean anything in the end.

 

To win a cup, everything has to line up at the same time:  goaltending, staying injury free, officiating/fair chance to succeed, scoring, and yes...luck.  Tenacity and desire drive the motor.  The team that wants to win the most and is willing to put it all out there has a chance.  

 

You've listed some of those things that NO team, despite how "deep or talented", can avoid or fully control.  (I hadn't read your last post when I typed this).  I feel like you've just adopted a fairly negative view of the team and aren't getting past that.  It's more about proving a theory ... something about a team that's so far off but all teams are "in progress".  Healthy Petey is a difference maker and I wonder if you watched Hoglander and how he plays the game?  With confidence and skill?  The team changes over time but your stance doesn't.  

 

Ignore what they did last year because:  ?  ("The Canucks under Benning arent usually good enough to even make the playoffs") ,Ignore what happened this year with scheduling and COVID because:  ?

 

You think it can be mapped out with precision:   do x, y and z....but I feel it's you who misses the difficulty in actually getting there.  That it isn't THAT easy and a team that starts gathering momentum can go further than anticipated.

 

Paper isn't a guarantee....Vegas looked quite awful right after the series with us.  These are human beings....if they are "off", it matters.  The flipside...a team that's "on" can have results that can surprise you.

 

Your description of the Canucks isn't THE description...because you do disregard what they were able to do last year and some of the pieces that are in place.  They took Vegas to 7 games...doesn't matter HOW, just matters that they did.  That's not far away from where you need to be.

 

Mostly, I feel that everyone in synch and on the same page as a team is critical in playoffs....playing as a well oiled machine.  "Chemistry" matters a whole lot.   Generating momentum is huge.

 

You keep talking in definitives...like we couldn't possibly.  Some of us know how hard it is but also how, once you get "in" and get motoring with some momentum, anything can happen.

Why is it so hard for you to see that while the Canucks do have some good young players and have progressed in that regard, that they are still not a good enough team top to bottom to be considered cup competitive.

 

Under your rose colored glasses literally every team has the same chance to win a cup if they just make the playoffs. Unfortunately, history doesnt really agree with you.

 

Any team that has a pretty ineffective bottom 6 (both offensively and defensively) to the point where it has to rely on a top 6 line to play the significant defensive role and whose #1 dman is sub par defensively trying to generate only offense is not lucking their way to a cup. No team has ever accomplished that actually.

 

Being realistic is not being a hater. There is a lot of work to do to make this team playoff competitive. Lets hope Benning understands that.

[86Viking]

16 hours ago, whysoserious said:

Square one to getting a cup is icing a competitive roster year in and year out, which is difficult to do when you are not prudent about how you manage your team’s assets. This idea that “anything can happen in the playoffs” is largely nonsense. When was the last time a team that barely squeaked into the playoffs won a cup? At the end of the day, no team is happy with just making the playoffs. If you haven’t already seen it, check out Masai Ujiri’s end of year conference call.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDDZTThhVxs

St louis blues, fired their coach early in January and went on the win the Cup. LAK 1st cup was when they limped in as a 8 seed I think and destroyed every team they played, that was within 10 years. So some very recent teams have done it, just need a solid group of hockey minds that are willing to make tough choices and the Canucks just don't have that. 

 

If we did, the Sedin's would not have been kept here till the end of time, same goes for Edler. There comes a time where core players are no longer effective or if they return they are taking ice time away from prospects or young players trying to make it as a regular or give them a chance to have more playing time to work through smoe issues as they adjust to the NHL.

 

The Canucks were patient with the Sedins, not patient with Neely/Grabner/McCann and others to various degrees of course. Sedins are legends for this team the others are not.

 

Fact is, we need to surround this organization with some fresh faces in positions that have some pull. Maybe that is an new President of hockey operations who can look past a players tenure like say Edler and say sure we will miss him but if he wants 4m or a full NMC or NTC I think the best choice going forward is to let him go. If he wants to stay he has made his money he can sign a 1 yr cheap deal. Edler for 1.5m or less sure, Edler for 3m or more and NMC or NTC is a pass from me.

 

I want to see what OJ and Rathbone can do as well as some of the young forwards. It is not their fault the team is in a cap crunch that falls on the GM, which hey he should be gone after last year 100% but to save face and let him be the whipping boy next year if this don't start that well then I could see a GM being fired over the coach, unless the owner drinks some of Nolan's NY water or something and goes off and fires the GM and HC and does a complete reset...if that was the case it should and could have happen this off season

[ShawnAntoski]

23 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

St louis blues, fired their coach early in January and went on the win the Cup. LAK 1st cup was when they limped in as a 8 seed I think and destroyed every team they played, that was within 10 years. So some very recent teams have done it, just need a solid group of hockey minds that are willing to make tough choices and the Canucks just don't have that. 

 

If we did, the Sedin's would not have been kept here till the end of time, same goes for Edler. There comes a time where core players are no longer effective or if they return they are taking ice time away from prospects or young players trying to make it as a regular or give them a chance to have more playing time to work through smoe issues as they adjust to the NHL.

 

The Canucks were patient with the Sedins, not patient with Neely/Grabner/McCann and others to various degrees of course. Sedins are legends for this team the others are not.

 

Fact is, we need to surround this organization with some fresh faces in positions that have some pull. Maybe that is an new President of hockey operations who can look past a players tenure like say Edler and say sure we will miss him but if he wants 4m or a full NMC or NTC I think the best choice going forward is to let him go. If he wants to stay he has made his money he can sign a 1 yr cheap deal. Edler for 1.5m or less sure, Edler for 3m or more and NMC or NTC is a pass from me.

 

I want to see what OJ and Rathbone can do as well as some of the young forwards. It is not their fault the team is in a cap crunch that falls on the GM, which hey he should be gone after last year 100% but to save face and let him be the whipping boy next year if this don't start that well then I could see a GM being fired over the coach, unless the owner drinks some of Nolan's NY water or something and goes off and fires the GM and HC and does a complete reset...if that was the case it should and could have happen this off season

Ditto on most points - especially, with personnel being re signed for nostalgic or great intangibles reasons cause as proven by the Shaw signing mentoring doesn’t have to come from expensive forwards that are mostly good at face offs on the ice.   Preferably, all the FA’s walks unless they are willing to take league min & less ice time; looking forward to what Shaw can accomplish with this group cause we already know what to expect from the rest of the Staff.
 

With hindsight, it would had been prudent to play & showcase the future in this losing season - imo.

[bigbadcanucks]

4 hours ago, Boudrias said:

The main reason the Canucks took Vegas to 7 games last year was all on Demko. The rest of the team were there for the ride.

 

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

You are clearly missing the point. I said literally very little of what you are claiming I did. 

 

I never said the Canucks dont have some good players. I said they dont - at this point - have enough to be considered a competitive cup team. Been true Benning's entire tenure actually. Not sure how thats some heinous negative view of the team. Its simply true.

 

They won one playoff round last year. It takes 4 to win a cup. You say they took Vegas to 7 games which shows how much of a cup conpetitor they are. Did you watch any games in that series? The Canucks were dominated start to finish. Goaltending was the only reason that wasnt over in 5 at best. If you think any goalie could play the way Demko did for those 3 games for 4 playoff rounds you are delusional. 

 

How many teams with a bottom 6 that cannot provide any offense at all or play shutdown defense has won a Stanley Cup? None. You need contributions from your whole lineup. 

 

How many teams without a true 2 way top pairing quality dman has won a cup? None. 

 

Teams win cups, not individual players. And there is certainly luck involved (as I actually previously said). No cup winner has relied only on luck with an inferior roster to win a cup. If you dont think the Canucks have an inferior roster most of the last 7 years, you clearly arent objective. And if you think someone pointing out the reality is some kind of "hate" its not. Its simply reality.

 

If you arent realistic about your weaknesses and your shortcomings as a team you are never going to be able to fix them. Actually, thats the reason the Canucks dont. Because they dont ever admit it even when they simply are not good enough. 

 

Anyone who thinks the current Canucks roster could luck its way through 4 rounds and win a cup is delusional and has clearly never watched playoff hockey. No scoring from the bottom 6 us no team toughness = EP, Boeser, and Hughes all probably injured by cheap shots because the team holds no one accountable.

Great posts, Boudrias and Wallstreet...

 

Great goaltending masks a lot of deficiencies on any team.  Bubble Canucks were no different.  Paul Maurice was honest enough to give this assessment of his own team during his end-of-season presser a few days ago.  I suppose being a professional coach allows Maurice a significant amount of objectivity.  Something that is sorely lacking among a lot of home team fans.

 

Same sort of honesty expressed publicly by Tortorella about a "stale" Canucks team was vilified by so many Canucks fans as being negative when it was fact-based opinion.  Even in private, these honest assessments are demonized...if Gillis was allowed to blow it up after 2012 as he proposed when the Canucks were beaten by the Kings, who knows how the past ten years would have unfolded. 

 

IMHO, Canucks have certain pieces in place that gives me reason to be very optimistic, but this team will be a group of pretenders unless holes are filled...four lines that can consistently pressure the opposition and contribute 35%-30%-20%-15% offence, respectively, 2 more big/heavy d-men who are mobile and well balanced offensively and defensively, and a back up goalie that can give you 25-30 reliable starts (> .500 win percentage and .905 save percentage).

 

The 2011 and 1994 Stanley Cup finalist teams were big, heavy, and skilled.  Today's NHL is no different than NHL of the past.  You still need a players on your team, top to bottom, who can beat the opposition with goals as well as their fists to go along with goaltending that is better than what the other team gets.  You can't win having only one or two of the elements to be successful.  Unfortunately, even though the Canucks are moving in the right direction, that's where they are right now.

Edited June 14, 2021 by bigbadcanucks

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, bigbadcanucks said:

 

Great posts, Boudrias and Wallstreet...

 

Great goaltending masks a lot of deficiencies on any team.  Bubble Canucks were no different.  Paul Maurice was honest enough to give this assessment of his own team during his end-of-season presser a few days ago.  I suppose being a professional coach allows Maurice a significant amount of objectivity.  Something that is sorely lacking among a lot of home team fans.

 

Same sort of honesty expressed publicly by Tortorella about a "stale" Canucks team was vilified by so many Canucks fans as being negative when it was fact-based opinion.  Even in private, these honest assessments are demonized...if Gillis was allowed to blow it up after 2012 as he proposed when the Canucks were beaten by the Kings, who knows how the past ten years would have unfolded. 

 

IMHO, Canucks have certain pieces in place that gives me reason to be very optimistic, but this team will be a group of pretenders unless holes are filled...four lines that can consistently pressure the opposition and contribute 35%-30%-20%-15% offence, respectively, 2 more big/heavy d-men who are mobile and well balanced offensively and defensively, and a back up goalie that can give you 25-30 reliable starts (> .500 win percentage and .905 save percentage).

 

The 2011 and 1994 Stanley Cup finalist teams were big, heavy, and skilled.  Today's NHL is no different than NHL of the past.  You still need a players on your team, top to bottom, who can beat the opposition with goals as well as their fists to go along with goaltending that is better than what the other team gets.  You can't win having only one or two of the elements to be successful.  Unfortunately, even though the Canucks are moving in the right direction, that's where they are right now.

I suspect my delivery of reality based assessments of the Canucks and management approach is why many consider me a "hater".

 

I love the Canucks and have since I was a kid in the 70's. They have a good core at this point but by no means a perfect one. In my mind a true cup contending core includes a clutch bottom 6 center that can play at both ends. A true #1 all around dman who can play the PP, PK, and matchup defense 5 on 5. If that player can provide a physical game thats even better. The Canucks have neither at this point.

 

They do have some flexibility though imo. If I put my optimistic hat on, I could see an effective 4 line forward group even if they cant get a 3rd line upgrade.

 

- EP, Miller, Horvat centering top 3 lines. Sutter as 4th line center placeholder would not be bad on a cheap 1 year deal. But Graovac would be serviceable there for a year too.

- top line quality offensive LW. If playing with EP and Boeser, needs to be a premier two way guy with some physical jam and an ability to create space and retrieve pucks. If playing with Miller it needs to be a guy with exceptional playmaking ability.

- Pearson and Horvat as 2/3 of a 3rd line is playoff quality depth imo. They need a RW who can play solid at both ends though. That could be Podkolzin or he could be a top 6 option. Hoglander I see as a good top 6 LW option but depending on other moves as suggested could be fantastic on the 3rd line RW. Having a 3rd line like that is how you win in the playoffs.

- the team actually has the makings of a solid 4th line. Highmore, Graovac, MacEwen, Motte, Sutter, etc. The problem is playing these guys up the lineup.

 

Defense is where the needs become critical. I love Hughes but he is not a true #1 dman you win in the playoffs with. The team needs a true all around #1 guy who can PP, PK, matchup 5 on 5, and play a more physical style. Hopefully that guy has a booming shot. Pair that guy with Hughes and you have a top pairing that can carry serious water in the playoffs. 

 

Schmidt is a guy who, if he stays, needs to be utilized to full effect. He is good at both ends. He didnt show nearly what he can do. Part of that was his pairing and usage. I think in the absence of other moves, a Juolevi/Rathbone-Schmidt pairing could be a highly effective 2nd pairing at both ends.

 

If you have Myers anchoring your 3rd pairing, that is quality playoff depth imo. It all stems around a true #1 RHD imo.

 

The Canucks are not necessarily that far off. But they need to change wasting cap on the wrong areas.

 

It becomes easier if they can add a true elite 3rd line center and true #1 RHD to the core of course.

 

 

[TNucks1]

6 hours ago, tas said:

he's currently serving a 4 year suspension from the iihf for a positive cocaine test. 

damn, dont remember hearing about that, when was that.

[4petesake]

4 minutes ago, TNucks1 said:

damn, dont remember hearing about that, when was that.

Washington Capitals forward Evgeny Kuznetsov won’t be appearing in any international competitions for a long time.

On Friday morning, the International Ice Hockey Federation announced that the Russian center had been suspended for four years. According to the IIHF’s release, Kuznetsov tested positive for cocaine during the 2019 World Hockey Championship in May.

His four-year ban began on June 13th, 2019 and it will come to an end on June 12th, 2023. He’ll be 31 years old when he’s finished serving this suspension and, should NHL players participate, will not be eligible for the 2022 Olympics in Beijing. 

[Alflives]

Just now, 4petesake said:

Washington Capitals forward Evgeny Kuznetsov won’t be appearing in any international competitions for a long time.

On Friday morning, the International Ice Hockey Federation announced that the Russian center had been suspended for four years. According to the IIHF’s release, Kuznetsov tested positive for cocaine during the 2019 World Hockey Championship in May.

His four-year ban began on June 13th, 2019 and it will come to an end on June 12th, 2023. He’ll be 31 years old when he’s finished serving this suspension and, should NHL players participate, will not be eligible for the 2022 Olympics in Beijing. 

We don't want anything to do with this guy, that's for sure.  

[buddhahoodlum]

22 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

Washington Capitals forward Evgeny Kuznetsov won’t be appearing in any international competitions for a long time.

On Friday morning, the International Ice Hockey Federation announced that the Russian center had been suspended for four years. According to the IIHF’s release, Kuznetsov tested positive for cocaine during the 2019 World Hockey Championship in May.

His four-year ban began on June 13th, 2019 and it will come to an end on June 12th, 2023. He’ll be 31 years old when he’s finished serving this suspension and, should NHL players participate, will not be eligible for the 2022 Olympics in Beijing. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3DF8XgIMM8

 

Not sure how to imbed youtube videos anymore. Anyway the song is

Buckcherry - I Love Cocaine - YouTube

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by buddhahoodlum
Lacking video description

[Pickly]

40 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We don't want anything to do with this guy, that's for sure.  

No, but in reality a good portion of guys in the league are doing blow.