Curt
-
Posts
8,714 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Curt
-
-
Krebs has not been that bad. He is producing almost no offense but also allows almost no shots or goals against. He is treading water out there.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:
On the one hand: all of these players are mid-to-late 30s when they had the operation and were already in the "lost a step" category and trying to hang on for a few more veteran savvy seasons. And in some cases (Kesler, Jovo) they already had a ton of heavy wear on those tires.
On the other hand: Kane is already mid-30s and has more games played than any of them.
Yeah, this is a surgery for when your hips are too worn out to do what you need them to do. So anyone one who gets this surgery is going to be an old worn out guy.
The question is: Can this surgery successfully allow those hips to do what is needed to be a good NHL player for a couple more years?
-
42 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:
The Backstrom case definitely gives me pause. Who was the other? I think it was an older Dman who finished out the year but then called it a career.
Jovanovski, he played thirty something games then retired.
Kesler, Bakstrom, Hagelin.
Basically no one has had the surgery then come back to be a real player. Small sample size, but concerning.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, LTS said:
Did I say banned for life? I don't think I did. If I did I certainly did not mean to. I thought my arguments have been solely about not wanting someone like that where I work or to work around someone like that.
I feel like I even called out if a person in that situation goes through meaningful change they might eventually get to the point where I would want to give them a second chance. Note that I am saying *I* might want to... I fully accept others might do it sooner.
Not trying to put words in your mouth. The original comment w was replying to said that he should be “out of the league for good”, and you seemed to say that you were in favor of “banning” him from the NHL. Banning sound rather permanent to me. Did you mean a temporary ban? As in a suspension?
-
51 minutes ago, SwampD said:
Virtually every company everywhere.
“Because everyone is doing it” is not a justification.
I do concede that in some circumstances, things like this make sense, but not for the majority of jobs.
-
7 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:
Correct, and the NHL/NHLPA has the same thing.
Article 18-A of the League’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, which grants the commissioner authority to impose discipline on a player who “has been or is guilty of [off-ice] conduct (whether during or outside the playing season) that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League[.]”
Criminal activity of all kinds are covered. It is bad for the business of the league.
18-A is a mutual understanding between the league and the players. No one is being canceled so much as Lucic is suffering consequences of his own actions.
That’s totally fine. I never said that Lucic should face zero league repercussions. I assumed that there was a clause like that as part of the players’ contracts.
What I objected to was people saying that he should be banned for life.
-
5 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:
I don’t agree and while it isn’t domestic violence... If I am convicted of a DWI, I lose my job. That is a consequence of my own actions. My employer is not canceling me.
If being convicted of a DWI violates already established conditions of your employment, then that is not objectionable.
1 hour ago, LTS said:His actions were not an assault on public security. They were allegedly an assault on his spouse. Banning him from the NHL demonstrates consequences to his actions away from the game. The criminal justice system can demonstrate consequences to his actions in the courts.
I am in favor of revoking their ability to work for me or with me, yes. Everyone has their own standards. If someone else wants to give him a shot then that's great for them. If the person seeks help and turns their life around, then great. At some point if I were close enough to the situation, I might actually give them another chance. But this isn't about a second chance, this is about messing up your first chance. It takes a conscious decision to assault another human being especially how it was described.
Some people get angry when they drink. Those people should be told that and they should stop drinking before their anger boils over. I've been WAY too close to that situation in my life. If a person who tends to rage when they drink won't stop drinking I'm 100% getting away from that.
How does someone get a second chance in the NHL if they are banned for life?
-
1 hour ago, Weave said:
Banning Lucic would absolutely be helpful to the NHL, who does not want any part of being associated with an accused domestic violence offender.
And there is absolutely risk to the NHLs business, and in the NHLs best interest to distance themselves pronto.
Hmm, pronto? Before any legal conclusions have been come to? All it takes is to be accused in order to be banned for life?
-
1 minute ago, Weave said:
Noone is revoking their ability to work.
However, the accused has surely limited the number of employers that would be willing to employ them.Im all for second chances. I am not at all willing to risk my livelihood, or my business to offer it to them.
And frankly, Lucic in particular won’t suffer financially from this unless he’s made a bunch of other poor choices along the way. Sucks to be him, then.
I was responding to a hypothetical scenario where Lucic is banned by the NHL, which he won’t be. I was just arguing that a banning would not be helpful to anyone.
There is no reason that allowing Lucic to continue as an NHL player should be a risk to the NHL’s livelihood or business.
-
35 minutes ago, steveoath said:
In my job (teaching) you would be sacked. There is a contract clause about conduct outside of work.
That makes sense. People are leaving their children in your care. I understand why that clause is in place.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:
Trevor Bauer & DeShaun Watson say hello.
1) Like I said earlier, if any contractual clauses are violated, then I’m fine with the repercussions layed out by them.
2) I’m well aware that blackballing/cancelling can happen. That’s my whole point.
3) Watson was not blackballed. In fact, in the middle of a known investigation, he was given a huge contract. He was suspended for violation of part of his contract, served his suspension, and went back to work. This case was handled in a proper way, as far as I know, in my opinion.
-
10 minutes ago, LTS said:
If someone demonstrates the potential to engage in that kind of behavior, do you want it in your organization? Not even just hockey.
Cancel culture would be if he said something someone disagreed with. Assaulting another human being is not that. It's easy to discard and denounce people like that because they are scum. I think people should be better with their words and how they treat others, but words are just words. Physical altercations on the other hand are much more than that. They are a direct assault on the personal security everyone should enjoy. It is much harder to make a positive impact in the world. Most people prefer to look at others and analyze them and tear them down. Not many want to engage in introspection and apply the same criteria.
I'm not going to make snide comments on Lucic because there is a victim in this scenario and making light of it, in my opinion, is disrespecting the other party impacted.
My definition of cancel culture differs slightly from your but that’s mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand.I’d argue that, while his actions were an assault on public security, banning him from the NHL doesn’t improve public security. It would just be a BS, low effort PR move on the NHL’s part.
In the case of someone who does something like this, domestic violence, if you are in favor of revoking their ability to work, you probably should just be in favor of a long prison sentence for them, no? How is someone supposed to get help/improve themselves while they are blackballed from working?
-
1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:
2023 says hello.
Yeah, I get that, but I don’t totally get it. You know?
1 hour ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:Good question.
The whole millions of dollars thing to be a role model and not a shitbag.
But at the same time, it does bring up a decent question.
I suppose it depends on any specific phrases about “being a role model” type conduct in the CBA.
Especially for an organization that accepts players punching eachother in the face as “part of the game”, an outright banning for something like this is a tough moral hardline to justify. In my eyes at least.
1 hour ago, Weave said:No organization in the world wants to be viewed as tolerating that sort of behavior. That is tons of justification right there.
A very poor justification, in my opinion. Issue public statements denouncing the behavior, get him help with therapy or whatever he needs help with. Show some regard for him as a human being instead of simply discarding him, like some people call for.
If you guys can’t tell, I’m not a big fan of cancel culture type stuff in general. In most cases I don’t think it does the world any good. It’s easy to discard and denounce people. It’s much harder to make a positive impact on the world.
-
18 minutes ago, Zamboni said:
Two sides to every story. If true, that idiot should be out of the league for good. The league will be a better place without him.
Not that I condone domestic violence, but what would be the justification for banning someone from a job based on something they did unrelated to the job?
-
5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
idk, it's not like I pay attention to the medical details. All I know is Marchand had double hip surgeries and he's fine. Kane's could be different, but I assume a team that signs him has doctors and a medical test. At least they should.
Yeah, I’m not trying to say Kane definitely can not play again, but a few guys have tried this surgery and have gone back to teams and tried, but none of them have been able to continue their careers for more than 40ish games. It’s a huge surgery. It’s not just ligament surgery or something soft tissue that needs time to heal. It’s a hip replacement. He has metal hip joints now.
So he could be the first, but until someone is able to actually play after this kind of surgery I’m extremely skeptical that Kane will be able to or, if he is able to get out there, that he will be any good.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
Except, Marchand had double hip surgery before last season and he's still who he is.
Every athlete is different, but if their fitness level is high it is definitely something you can come back from.
It's really a simple question. Who would you rather have on the roster Kane or Olofsson?
Marchand had a very very different surgery.
These hip resurfacing surgeries, which is almost a hip replacement (you end up with a metal ball in metal socket for your hip joint), have terrible outcomes for NHL players thus far.
It’s a small sample size, but the results of these surgeries has been truly awful in terms of continuing an NHL career. No one has been able to play more than half a season after getting the surgery. I don’t think people are putting enough consideration into the idea that Kane’s NHL career might actually be already finished.
-
4 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:
So "domestic" as in a family issue?
Well, domestic basically means inside the home. I suppose it’s possible that it the term could be used for an altercation with a friend or something inside the home, but the term is almost always used when it’s an issue between spouses/significant others.
-
4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
Those two things don't directly correlate either.
Did you know that incidences of rape have a direct correlation to ice skate sales? True fact. Stats are a funny funny thing.
Are you asserting that a team’s playing style, be it offensive or defensive, has no correlation with the number of shots/goals that occur in their games?
It’s a bold position. You may believe it, but you are going to need to provide some evidence to convince me. As of right now, I’m going to reject your comment as incorrect.
-
5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
That does NOT mean we are playing better D. It can simply mean opposing teams are playing more defensively against us.
Also, it is a copycat league and there is more defensive hockey all over because of Florida vs. Vegas in the final. Quite a few teams playing tighter and more disciplined hockey than last year. The paradigm has shifted back a little.
This is actually not true.
At least any differences in playing style league wide have not resulted in a decrease in shots or goals per game.
-
4 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:
There is nothing about structurally sound defensive hockey that equates to playing without pace or intensity. Perhaps these are growing pains as we learn we can do both.
I think last year they did a lot more of jumping out of the defensive zone early in order to generate offense off the rush. That’s great for creating scoring chances, but it also puts you in big trouble if you turn it over in the neutral zone. They come right back the other way, fast.
I think they haven’t done that as much this year. They have been more likely to go back deep in the defensive zone to help the D, rather than try to get in position to blow the zone early.
This certainly doesn’t mean they can’t play with pace or intensity. There will be less rush offense though.
My guess would be that you are right about growing pains. I think they are being coached to play a more defensive style where they focus on getting back deep in the defensive zone, and they are still adjusting to that new style. I think they need to find a balance and learn when to pick their spots to generate rush offense.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:
I’m not sure we grasp how insane the whole front office is when you put a young kid in the pipes right away and expect him to carry the load and get us to the playoffs. It’s sheer madness. And that’s one of many bizarre decisions.
In normal organizations, he would have done at least a year in the AHL (probably two) and they would have signed a dependable vet on a 2-3 year contract.
it’s madness.
Yup. You at least put him in the AHL and if he is awesome there for half a season, give him some NHL games in the 2nd half. At least make him show it at the lower level.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
Well you know what happened to the King's hand in Game of Thrones 🙂
What happened?
PS: I’m going to need you to brush up on your Game of Thrones. Basically, the guy who got his hand chopped off wasn’t the King. He is the Queen’s brother.
Oh, unless you were talking about the King’s Hand, Ned Stark! Didn’t think of that first. That guy got his head chopped off.
-
44 minutes ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:
Sorry for the delay, I’m traveling a bit for work this week.
Core should be 6, no more than 7? Why you say? Because 7 is 3 defensemen, 3 forwards, and a goalie (current Sabres “core”). It is also 2 defensemen, 4-5 forwards, and a goalie (sometimes).
Let’s do the math next. Specifically for the Sabres because duh:
Position, Name, Salary (or projected salary during core years)
Goalie, Levi, $4.5Mx3 after ELD
Defense 1, Dahlin, 11M
Defense 2, Powers, 8.4M
Defense 3, Mule, 4.3M
Offense 1, Tage, 7.1M
Offense 2, Cozens, 7M
Offense 3, Skinner, 9M
Offense Core +1, Tuch/Casey, 4.8M/6.5M
First off, yeah, Skinner is your core. You don’t sign guys for 8 years that aren’t your core. Once skinners contract is over you can either go down to 6 core, or add someone like JJ here, who I think is a 5M+ player and fills a critical need (strength on the boards, vision) once he is at his peak.
Second, you will see the salary demands assumed here take up 2/3 of the available cap space assuming a $84.5M cap. So basically you have to sign 16 players with 1/3 of the projected available cap space.
This is why there is a core, and why I think you have to build flexibility into your roster. Because if 1 or 2 of these guys get injured or flames out the Sabres go from a position of strength to one of uncertainty.
No apologies necessary. I appreciate the conversation.
It’s fine to just list out the 6-7 guys that you have the most money or term commitments to and call that your core I guess. And the idea that you should budget so you are able to adequately fill out both a forward and defenseman group makes total sense.
I guess my sticking point is what I said in my previous post. In your mind, what is a core? What makes a player a core player? Is it just him being signed to a long contract?
For example, Samuelsson is signed for a while, but he isn’t making a ton of money (it’s a very average salary) and he doesn’t have trade protection or anything like that. What makes him part of the “core”?
-
1 hour ago, oddoublee said:
ed jovanovski (granted, 10 years ago...)
nicklas backstrom
carl hagelin
ryan kesler
not a long list - but that could also be a point - it may not be an ideal surgery to have if you play sports.
1 hour ago, Weave said:Again, what is the source for the full list of NHLers that have had this procedure done?
According to this ESPN piece by Emily Kaplan from earlier this year, only Jovanovski and Kesler had this procedure done previous to Backstrom. The outcomes have been quite poor. Seems like an absolute last ditch effort.
I actually didn’t quite realize how serious this was. It’s in essence a hip replacement. A newer technique for it, but still the hip joint is now a metal ball in a metal socket.
-
1
-
Peyton Krebs- Only 1 Assist?!?! Seriously!
in The Aud Club
Posted
Lol, I didn’t say he has been good, fine, or even acceptable. Just that he hasn’t been THAT bad, treading water.
By all means, replace him with someone better. I’ll be happy.