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

Jake Virtanen update

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

I think it's very likely that the girl is looking for a payday.    

 

Why she decided to bring this up now as opposed to 2017 when this "supposedly occurred" is beyond me.  

 

While the intent behind the "me too" movement is a noble one and one that I support, I feel like the pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point where any guy could be at tremendous risk for making even the slightest of advances.   

 

Obviously, more evidence needs to come to the forefront, and Jake absolutely deserves to be punished if he did something wrong here, but my gut tells me that this lady is taking advantage of the situation and looking for a quick pay day.

 

58 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

What a embarrassingly miss informed stance you have on this subject. There are numerous reasons why it would take years to come forward. Infact, the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults aren't reported at the time of assult it it takes months or years for the victim to come forward. I'm sincerely ashamed to share a message board I love so dearly with some of the people here.

Good post Shayster - right on "the money"  and I agree, some people just don't "get it" and continue to use any imaginable excuse to justify abuse - and why it's gone on so long. 

 

 As soon as I read that other post, the first thing that came to mind is "flat earth conferences" and "Magnetic Anti Vaxers"   Don't know why.......???

 

 Check the Video out in Colbert's clip. .........

 

Some people......   

 

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Agreed about the error in seemingly choosing Jake over Toffoli (if that’s what it came down to), but my argument is that Jake is much better than what he showed this past season, and that his 20 goal pace from 19-20 was a more accurate reflection of his abilities.   Why?  Because - Covid affects everyone differently in terms of mental health.  Covid fatigue is a real thing, and not all atheletes have the introverted mental toughness and intensity that a Jonathan Toews or a Bo Horvat may have.   
 

You might be right that Virtanen is a bust, but I’d really be interested in seeing how he performs in a post Covid world in which he can have a social life outside of hockey once again.   

Trust me when I say that Jake the Ripper will never have a normal social life again - never! 

You can bank on that......

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Dazzle said:

In my opinion, this is going to be dealt with on the civil side. And if Virtanen is considering countersuing, this could be a very messy civil case. Even dropping her lawsuit may or may not stop him from proceeding with a countersuit. At best, she's hoping that Virtanen will settle. That is likely her only way to 'win'.

 

In the event that she lied or misrepresented her stuff, she's going to pay big time. Either way, Virtanen is going to get shipped out, no matter what. Such a terrible ending for a player that never could put it together.

 

18 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

If Jake is found innocent, I hope he files a counter-lawsuit against her based on grounds of emotional distress, libel, slander, and the whole works.   

What would Virtanen counter-sue her for?  You can't sue someone for defamation based on things they say in court/lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, tas said:

not really though. even if she was planning to hook up with virtanen that night and the messages make that clear, it doesn't (or shouldn't) play any role in deciding whether she consented in the moment. hell, she has the right to stop consenting half way through if she wants. 

 

that being said, if she didn't make things clear, how can he be expected to know?

 

these things are never black and white. 

I'm not too involved in this case, but if she claimed something like "I was never interested in him and tried shrugging him off again and again" and the text message show she was involved with sexting or interest to hook up, it would go against her claim that she wasn't interested. Now if she said she was initially interested that night, etc... then it would actually support her claim. You're unlikely to find one piece of evidence to blow this case wide open, but accumulated evidence that discredits either party will play an important factor.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

I would wholeheartedly agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that Virtanen was on pace for a 20 goal season before covid began.                

 

So, one of two things is true in my opinion.    

 

1) Jake completely forgot how to play hockey during this covid period. 

 

2) The 'restricted' covid lifestyle had a tremendous negative impact on Jake, to the point where it greatly effected his game.  

 

People can scoff at the idea of covid and the mental effects that it can have on someone, but it is a thing.     

 

While I'm not entirely sure that Jake remaining in Vancouver would be the best thing for his career, I am interested to see how he performs in a post covid world where he'd be able to resume his normal life.   
 

Phil Knight even talks about the importance of a coach catering to an individual within reason.  This is how he was one of few coaches to maximizes Dennis Rodman.   I am hopefully that this is the approach that we can eventually take with Virtanen if he returns to us next season.

 

All players are different.  Not everyone has the same focus and mental toughness as guys like Michael Jordan, Jonathan Toews, and Bo Horvat.   Some guys, though talented, are on the opposite end of the mental spectrum such as Dennis Rodman and Jake Virtanen.

I think Jake got as motivated as he needed to in order to get himself a new contract that season. He never played consistently from a production pov. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I can't think many teams would be interested in a marginal player with off ice problems

DeAngelo is another guy that comes to mind. Nobody wants him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I can't think many teams would be interested in a marginal player with off ice problems

if we buy him out, someone will throw a league min deal at Jake. And he'll be motivated and probably do OK. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saved_by_Jesus said:

 

What would Virtanen counter-sue her for?  You can't sue someone for defamation based on things they say in court/lawsuit.

Kesha sued Dr. Luke, and then Dr. Luke countersued. That's what I thought of. Yes, it's a completely different case, but I thought maybe there'd be something similar there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, c00kies said:

I'm not too involved in this case, but if she claimed something like "I was never interested in him and tried shrugging him off again and again" and the text message show she was involved with sexting or interest to hook up, it would go against her claim that she wasn't interested. Now if she said she was initially interested that night, etc... then it would actually support her claim. You're unlikely to find one piece of evidence to blow this case wide open, but accumulated evidence that discredits either party will play an important factor.

I honestly couldn't care less about the legal side of things, I care about nuts and bolts, right and wrong. 

  • Hydration 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saved_by_Jesus said:

 

What would Virtanen counter-sue her for?  You can't sue someone for defamation based on things they say in court/lawsuit.

I’m not sure.  All I know is that it’s wrong on so many levels of accusing someone of doing something, dragging their name through the mud, sullying their rep, and then acting like things would go back to normal for the person even after a non guilty verdict.   

  • Hydration 2
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

He hasn't broken a law 

Neither have the Canucks.

He was accused of a criminal act and the organization respected the authorities to fully investigate the matter, and Jake has the right to sue this team because of it? 

 

Give me a break.

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

I’m not sure.  All I know is that it’s wrong on so many levels of accusing someone of doing something, dragging their name through the mud, sullying their rep, and then acting like things would go back to normal for the person even after a non guilty verdict.   

keep in mind, even if jake is found not guilty (if it goes to court) or if the investigation doesn't turn up anything substantive, it doesn't mean the accuser is a liar. it just means that the same situation can look very different from different perspectives.

  • Hydration 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Jake Virtanen has the IQ of a potato, the on-ice determination of a cream puff, and the on-ice consistency of the sewage being treated at Annacis Island.  That said, this site's guidelines do include one item about not discussing a player's personal life, which I think this legal action falls squarely into.  Not sure why this thread is still going.

When the personal life crosses into the hockey life (as it's done here), it's a little different.  It's common knowledge and "out there", including a team statement that IS hockey talk.  

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

When the personal life crosses into the hockey life (as it has done here), it's a little different.  It's common knowledge and "out there", including a team statement.  

As you wish.  The quality of posts in this thread though are quite low, most of it being insinuations, unfounded rumours, unsubstantiated hearsay, attacks on posters whose opinions differ from their own, etc.  

 

ie. no different than almost any other thread here

 

...except that Site Guideline #10 does have the following wording:

 

Quote

10. You will respect the personal privacy of players/management(past and present) and their families.

Discussions about players or management that have nothing to do with hockey (including talking about how good looking the players are) are strongly discouraged. You will not post personal and/or private pictures of players/management.

So, as I said: as you wish.

  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the standard criminal ie charged or found guilty or is it more like civil where there needs to be reasonable evidence of?

  If a Canuck’s investigation found substantial reason to believe this is that enough to terminate?  I am almost certain it is not that he has to be convicted. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Is the standard criminal ie charged or found guilty or is it more like civil where there needs to be reasonable evidence of?

  If a Canuck’s investigation found substantial reason to believe this is that enough to terminate?  I am almost certain it is not that he has to be convicted. 

I am not a lawyer, but I believe when the plaintiff has filed a civil suit, it is adjudicated on the basis of "balance of probabilities". All that means is that the plaintiff has to convince the judge that the allegations probably happened. The judge, in finding for the plaintiff, assigns whatever remedy is being sought. On the other hand, these things are often settled out of court, meaning the defendant ends up paying. 

 

Termination for cause is a possibility, but the easiest thing to do is simply buy him out. If they did that, he would cost $50,000 against the 21/22 cap and $500,000 against the 22/23 cap, and $1.4 million to the player rather than $3 million they owe him for one more year. When Benning was talking buyouts, I'm fairly sure he was thinking of Jake.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

As you wish.  The quality of posts in this thread though are quite low, most of it being insinuations, unfounded rumours, unsubstantiated hearsay, attacks on posters whose opinions differ from their own, etc.  

 

ie. no different than almost any other thread here

 

...except that Site Guideline #10 does have the following wording:

 

So, as I said: as you wish.

To be fair, it does say "strongly discouraged", not "not allowed"...

Edited by Chickenspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Saved_by_Jesus said:

 

What would Virtanen counter-sue her for?  You can't sue someone for defamation based on things they say in court/lawsuit.

You can if you can demonstrate that what is being said is a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

Is the standard criminal ie charged or found guilty or is it more like civil where there needs to be reasonable evidence of?

  If a Canuck’s investigation found substantial reason to believe this is that enough to terminate?  I am almost certain it is not that he has to be convicted. 

Criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Civil is balance of probabilities, i.e. 51% 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -DLC- locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...