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

[GDT] Around the NHL | March (12-18) 2023

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Lots of straw men built here. You’re off on several tangents. 
It’s very simple. Reimer is a hypocrite. He’s saying one thing, “respect and kindness”, while doing the opposite. Players represent the league. They should be fined for not wearing the gay pride warm ups. 

Nah, not in favour of using this to single out a player and alienate them.  

 

We are living in a world where people start by showing support for LGBTQ+ through flags, jerseys, pronouns and it soon turns into a witch hunt for those that don't go out of their way to show support.  Non-sense. 

 

If someone feels that strongly about this issue, then go ahead and start volunteering to help the community in other ways.  Witch hunts don't do anything productive for anyone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Barnstorm said:

Markstrom completely melts down after losing to Dallas in OT. 

Video?!?  

 

Kinda want to see if he breaks another stick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

They’re paying him 8.5 to win faceoffs didn’t you know?

He has 2 goals in his last 15 games.  Hasn’t scored at all in his last 8 games.  I have to admit he timed that contract perfectly.  Good for him.  He got his money. Now he has to justify being the 2nd highest paid player on the team.  In 2-3 years if the team is a bottom feeder I wonder how the fans will be treating him then. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

How is his refusal to wear the gay pride jersey treating others with “respect and kindness”? His refusal is a direct contradiction to his statement. 

It’s crazy that some people think if you don’t literally fly their flag on your body, it is a lack of respect and tolerance. It’s like people forgot what those words even mean.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Alflives said:

Another straw man. This is about Reimer saying he’s respectful and kind but His actions don’t follow his words. The league should fine guys who refuse to support inclusion. They are hurting the business. 

 

You really seem to be just throwing the term "straw man" around because you have heard it and think that saying it is a way to avoid addressing any position that questions yours.

 

What I am doing would be better described as the Socratic method and you are basically just refusing to engage in that method at all as your starting and final position.  You can refuse all you like but you can't do so and also intelligently claim to have demonstrated your position or even supported it at all.

 

 

Edited by Kevin Biestra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Alflives said:

Another straw man. This is about Reimer saying he’s respectful and kind but His actions don’t follow his words. The league should fine guys who refuse to support inclusion. They are hurting the business. 

 

I'll add another question...

 

Are you actually a member of the LGBT community or are you a straight person making a display online about how you're one of the good guys.  You don't have to actually answer that as it's a private matter...but I would suggest acknowledging the question to yourself.

 

Either way, what do you think is more meaningful...almost the entire league wearing a jersey to support the community because they choose to...or everyone in the league wearing it because they are forced to.  Is that really support?  And whose support does that actually show?  If the players are all forced to wear the jersey, then that is really just a display that the person in a suit ordering them to wear the jersey supports the community.

 

 

I said before that I haven't seen evidence yet that you have considered the practicalities so let me offer what I would guess is the most likely scenario under your policy.  The player who doesn't wear the jersey is fined as you wish.  What happens next?  The player files a grievance against the NHL over the loss of pay and this is a very arguable case under contract and labor law.  Guess who sees the grievance through against the NHL?  The NHLPA.  Your policy has now put the NHLPA in the position of defending the "anti-gay" choice of not wearing the jersey.  That's how this stuff works, just like it's the NHLPA that defends a player against the NHL when they engage in suspendible behavior (head shots or whatever) where the penalty is argued to be excessive.

 

Do you think either the NHL or the NHLPA want that?  Of course they don't and I 99% guarantee you that they have already met behind the scenes and for this reason agreed that there will be no penalties for not wearing the jersey.  Because once these grievances are filed then it's more headlines and news stories and by far the least attention (and least abrasion to the LGBT community) is to just let the guy not wear the jersey and make a statement if he wants.  Now you can think that's right or wrong but that's just smart business.  What is the point of creating an ongoing news story with multiple events including fines and grievances over one guy not wearing a jersey...repeatedly presenting hockey as anti-gay well beyond this one guy's personal private decision...and who benefits?  You now have multiple ongoing news stories about the same single event (one guy not wearing a shirt).  Now maybe you feel it is best to tar and feather the guy who doesn't wear the shirt - and hey I'll consider the possibility that it is - but it is bad business.  For the league, for the team, and for the NHLPA.

 

How much money, publicity, lawyer's fees and corporate goodwill do you want to pour down the sinkhole of two or three guys not wearing the jersey...perhaps just to lose the case in court or arbitration and be humiliated plus now it's potentially externally mandated policy that the league can't force the jerseys on players.

 

So how exactly is it you want things to play out in the real world when you are declaring punishments by personal decree because you personally disagree with the player's personal choices.  And the bigger question is...does the LGBT community actually benefit from that...or are you actually the main beneficiary by demonstrating and proclaiming to the world that you're the one on the right side of the issue.

 

 

Edited by Kevin Biestra
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying watching Calgary slip into the non playoff sunset, a team built on yesterdays men. That included Darryl Sutter. Why they hired him after he

ruined their team once already as GM and coach was beyond me. 

We talk about Jim Benning's ineptness on this feed but wow has the Fames GM ever been a flop. Maybe even worse than Benning just a bit delayed

when it comes to time frame. 

Here's a team that will really face some cap problems sooner than later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, aqua59 said:

I'm enjoying watching Calgary slip into the non playoff sunset, a team built on yesterdays men. That included Darryl Sutter. Why they hired him after he

ruined their team once already as GM and coach was beyond me. 

We talk about Jim Benning's ineptness on this feed but wow has the Fames GM ever been a flop. Maybe even worse than Benning just a bit delayed

when it comes to time frame. 

Here's a team that will really face some cap problems sooner than later. 

 

To be fair they had to deal with their star leaving of his own accord and we could well suffer the same fate with Hughes or Elias and we have in the past with Bure.  I think the Flames actually did pretty well in acquiring replacements over the summer and they also did pretty well in gaining some of our best players when opportunity presented itself.  We are still to this day sorely missing Tanev.

 

As for Sutter...got them to the final.  I mean...I wouldn't have been horrified if the Canucks brought back Vigneault instead of hiring Tocchet.

 

But of all our bitter rivals over the years, I like Calgary the best and kind of cheer for them so maybe I'm defending them a bit for that reason.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2023 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Biestra said:

 

To be fair they had to deal with their star leaving of his own accord and we could well suffer the same fate with Hughes or Elias and we have in the past with Bure.  I think the Flames actually did pretty well in acquiring replacements over the summer and they also did pretty well in gaining some of our best players when opportunity presented itself.  We are still to this day sorely missing Tanev.

 

As for Sutter...got them to the final.  I mean...I wouldn't have been horrified if the Canucks brought back Vigneault instead of hiring Tocchet.

 

But of all our bitter rivals over the years, I like Calgary the best and kind of cheer for them so maybe I'm defending them a bit for that reason.

I was thinking at the rate Calgary is gong Vancouver may catch them in the points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...