• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Majsheppard

Why isn't the Wild in hot water for their owner's comments?

Rate this topic

47 posts in this topic

I don't care if it is hearsay, it has the same effect.

Regardless of the effect (the absurdity of which I discussed in my previous post), there is absolutely no proof that Leipold said anything of the sort and as such no case to make for punishing the Wild. End of story.

ogreslayer and T-Ruff like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the effect (the absurdity of which I discussed in my previous post), there is absolutely no proof that Leipold said anything of the sort and as such no case to make for punishing the Wild. End of story.

Launch an investigation. End of story. Ask them under oath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how the world continues to get worse. Just keep letting people get away with whatever they want.

It confounds me how much people are defeated about things that can be fixed. You know every single rape case is hearsay. Might as well not try with those.

You know what, every police investigation starts with hearsay. Hey, this guy has a motive let us go ask that person questions and look for hard evidence to build a case around. You know what, even though there is a credible source to follow, it is hearsay and we might as well not look into it.

No big deal.

These are rules, if you make them you should enforce them. Sure it is hearsay, maybe it is false and maybe they can't ever prove it. I don't see why you would not try. It doesn't hurt anything to look into it. In the very least if it was a lie and you look into it, we can ignore Nanne for the rest of time.

The only thing that lets some people get away with whatever they want is the indifference of man. Keep being indifferent, it just makes you look weak and pitiful. Make all the posts you want about not bothering, I would wonder what you would say to that if you were the victim of some bending of rules. If a coworker took credit for your work, or you got blamed for something and no one bothered to look into it because it would just be word vs. word.

You really want a world that works that way?!?!?

Jasper84 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the first page I quite clearly explained why I really don't care for this to be investigated. I think it's pretty stupid that team officials are not allowed to say that if a player were to make it to market, they would make a strong push for him. Throwing specific numbers around and talking directly to players or agents: those are (and should be) violations of the tampering rule. I simply don't think that saying that you would match any potential offer a player might receive should be considered a violation of the rules. People aren't stupid, everyone in both the Parise in NJ camps are quite aware that he is the marquee free agent forward this off-season and that if he makes it to UFA status, multiple teams will be making significant offers. I don't understand why everybody is supposed to play stupid until July 1st, especially when it comes to such a major free agent. It would of course be quite another matter if, for example, a GM publicly disclosed the terms of the offer he would be making to a free agent. But just to say "I really want him if he becomes available and I'll stop at nothing to try to make it happen" should not be against the rules, at least in my opinion.

Under the letter of the rules, you're right: this should be investigated and something should be done about it. I just don't like the rules. I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I don't think it'll be very productive for either one of us, so I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the first page I quite clearly explained why I really don't care for this to be investigated. I think it's pretty stupid that team officials are not allowed to say that if a player were to make it to market, they would make a strong push for him. ...

Under the letter of the rules, you're right: this should be investigated and something should be done about it. I just don't like the rules. I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I don't think it'll be very productive for either one of us, so I'll leave it at that.

Not every player is Parise, and you can't have different rules for different players. If Parise, or anyone else, wants to know what other teams are willing to offer, then all he has to do is wait until the 1st and find out. While Parise specifically may know he'll have no shortage of offers, there are a lot of players who don't have that security. They have to choose between the security of getting a contract before there's extra competition from UFAs and possibly getting more money or a better opportunity on the open market.

In my opinion, "we will not be outbid" is basically the same as throwing out a specific number. Worse even, since a specific number could be lower than what someone else offers. Now Parise knows he should talk to Minnesota after any offer, and he can use those comments to push for a higher salary from anyone who makes an offer. Things can move fast on UFA day. If the Wings want to be aggressive, they won't necessarily want to wait around while Parise gets a counter-offer from the Wild. Doing so could mean they miss out on other players.

Would it have made any difference had the story not been released? Likely no one will ever know. But it's pretty simple rule: Don't talk about players under contract to other teams. It's not hard. And there's no reason for it other than to give yourself an advantage over all the teams who follow the rules.

This is how the world continues to get worse. Just keep letting people get away with whatever they want.

It confounds me how much people are defeated about things that can be fixed. You know every single rape case is hearsay. Might as well not try with those. ...

I agree with you in principle, but comparing this to rape makes you sound a little hysterical.

I don't give a s*** if someone jaywalks. Doesn't mean I'm indifferent to every crime. Some things just aren't worth getting worked up over. This specific case, where the potential damage caused is likely somewhere between none and very little, and the potential for actually proving any wrongdoing is virtually nil, is I think one of those things. Certainly not worth the time and expense of a court proceeding. I don't think it would warrant anything more than a fine anyway, even if it was proven (as much as I would like to see Minnesota prohibited from signing Parise, I don't feel that would be justified).

Majsheppard likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Launch an investigation. End of story. Ask them under oath.

It's not about what you know, It's about what you can prove. Not that you know though anyway...

This is how the world continues to get worse. Just keep letting people get away with whatever they want.

It confounds me how much people are defeated about things that can be fixed. You know every single rape case is hearsay. Might as well not try with those.

You know what, every police investigation starts with hearsay. Hey, this guy has a motive let us go ask that person questions and look for hard evidence to build a case around. You know what, even though there is a credible source to follow, it is hearsay and we might as well not look into it.

No big deal.

These are rules, if you make them you should enforce them. Sure it is hearsay, maybe it is false and maybe they can't ever prove it. I don't see why you would not try. It doesn't hurt anything to look into it. In the very least if it was a lie and you look into it, we can ignore Nanne for the rest of time.

The only thing that lets some people get away with whatever they want is the indifference of man. Keep being indifferent, it just makes you look weak and pitiful. Make all the posts you want about not bothering, I would wonder what you would say to that if you were the victim of some bending of rules. If a coworker took credit for your work, or you got blamed for something and no one bothered to look into it because it would just be word vs. word.

You really want a world that works that way?!?!?

First, you don't know what hearsay means...stop using it.

Second, maybe the slope is so slippery because of all the red herring on it...

Third, you remind me of this guy

Your English is fine though

Edited by number9
ogreslayer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's see...

Did Parise already know the Wild were interested in him before this broke? Yes, unless he doesn't have access to newspapers, tv, radio, or the internet. Since I have never seen an Amish hockey player, I assume he does have access to all of those.

Does Parise already know the maximum any team can offer him? Yes, if he knows anything about the current CBA he does. No team can offer him a salary that is worth more than 20% of their salary cap at the time he is signed. With the current temporary cap set at ~$70m, any team can offer him the maximum of $14m a year. I would think that Parise's smart enough to know he's not getting that type of money though. More realistically, and this is just my opinion, he's probably looking at Brad Richards or Ilya Kovalchuk type money & he knows that already.

So all that Parise got out of Nanne's comments are: The Wild are interested in him & that they think nobody will be able to outbid them for his rights. I would have a feeling he knew all of this to begin with unless he lives in a cave when not at the rink. I'm sure he also knows that Detroit is interested & thinks that nobody will outbid them. Probably the same for the Rangers although he already said he wouldn't consider signing with them.

To recap: No new information really in anything Nanne said & it wasn't direct comments from anyone within the Wild organization. If this were tampering, Lou Lamoriello would already be all over this like he was with the Scott Stevens episode back in 1994 & as of yet, there hasn't been a single peep out of him or anyone within the Devil's organization about it. And as to comparing this to rape & demanding both parties be put under oath? Please, just step away from the Law & Order reruns on cable.

number9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. It's not reaching out to Parise directly, but saying that in public still qualifies as tampering to me.

Because Craig Leopold, former owner of the Nashville Predaturds, has been one of Bettman's butt buddies for close to 15 years. Leopold did not sell the Preds to Balsillie, so Bettman approved him to buy the Wild. Someone may have posted this prior to this response, but it's always fun to talk crap about Bettman, and anything Predaturds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Parise knows there will be teams wanting him come July 1, but actually confirming that your team will certainly be one of those teams, and that you're prepared to outpay everyone, in the roundabout way the Wild did I think is tampering. The actual coming out and saying it (through your dinner buddy) is where Parise's assumption becomes a certainty, at least for the Wild, and therefore tampering. Before, Parise just knew there were going to be teams interested, now he knows for sure one of them is the Wild and they might get the first call on July 1 from Parise's agent based on that "leaked" info. Not tampering still? Booools***.

esteef

Majsheppard likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say if Parise ACTUALLY signs a deal with the Wild, then it should REALLY be considered tampering and there should be 29 other teams filing grievances...

If Parise goes elsewhere then it won't matter. But I don't hear "friends" or other GM's out there saying that their "friends" team is going to be paying Parise the moon either, so I have to believe that it was wrong to do of Leopold's "friend" and it should be looked into by the league and the association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about what you know, It's about what you can prove. Not that you know though anyway...

First, you don't know what hearsay means...stop using it.

Second, maybe the slope is so slippery because of all the red herring on it...

Third, you remind me of this guy

Your English is fine though

Thank you?

I do know what hearsay is, and I just am saying that there are cases where the only person investigated are done by the recounting of another person towards nothing more than "I heard him yell at him that he was going to kill him." Doesn't mean the person killed someone, just means you should most likely check where the accused was and if they have motive, an alibi, and if there is any actual proof anywhere.

I don't see how anyone can argue against that.

Why not just see if there is some way he can verify that the comments on radio were from a dinner that actually happened. There clearly is a motive to leaking through a friend to get that word out, so it just makes sense to check on an alibi or if there is any proof. Really, is a couple of phone calls to see if they went to dinner together too much to ask?

I might sound crazy, but I just think that there are so many times that things happen that are clearly wrong... and people just roll over and take it. I am sick of it, and no one ever wants to fight back.

Honestly, how crummy has things been getting in other aspects of life when people just say... what are you going to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you?

I do know what hearsay is, and I just am saying that there are cases where the only person investigated are done by the recounting of another person towards nothing more than "I heard him yell at him that he was going to kill him." Doesn't mean the person killed someone, just means you should most likely check where the accused was and if they have motive, an alibi, and if there is any actual proof anywhere.

I don't see how anyone can argue against that.

Clearly you don't.

What you posted is not hearsay its a witnessed account. Hearsay would be "I heard from majsheppard, that the guy yelled he was going to kill him"

Edited by FlashyG
number9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh let the wild pay 9 mil for him....if the wings pay any player more than 8 mil a season it better be stamkos, giroux, Crosby... Parise ain't in that category I don't see why people have such a boner for him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how the world continues to get worse. Just keep letting people get away with whatever they want.

It confounds me how much people are defeated about things that can be fixed. You know every single rape case is hearsay. Might as well not try with those.

You know what, every police investigation starts with hearsay. Hey, this guy has a motive let us go ask that person questions and look for hard evidence to build a case around. You know what, even though there is a credible source to follow, it is hearsay and we might as well not look into it.

No....It's very apparent you don't know what hearsay means

Thank you?

I do know what hearsay is, and I just am saying that there are cases where the only person investigated are done by the recounting of another person towards nothing more than "I heard him yell at him that he was going to kill him." Doesn't mean the person killed someone, just means you should most likely check where the accused was and if they have motive, an alibi, and if there is any actual proof anywhere.

I don't see how anyone can argue against that.

Why not just see if there is some way he can verify that the comments on radio were from a dinner that actually happened. There clearly is a motive to leaking through a friend to get that word out, so it just makes sense to check on an alibi or if there is any proof. Really, is a couple of phone calls to see if they went to dinner together too much to ask?

I might sound crazy, but I just think that there are so many times that things happen that are clearly wrong... and people just roll over and take it. I am sick of it, and no one ever wants to fight back.

Honestly, how crummy has things been getting in other aspects of life when people just say... what are you going to do?

It's called politics, and most of the time it's sleezy. The Wild have done some clever political maneuvering....They allowed a well trimmed rumor to leak in such a way that no legal action would ever stick....Smart? Yes... Dirty? Yes.... A big deal? No....No s*** Minnesota is interested in Parise... This leak wasn't even directed at Parise though. The leak was aimed at other GM's....They want this in the back of other GM's heads on July 1st so that they will think "Minny is just gonna out bid us no matter what so let's just focus all our attention on our #2 choice while other GM's waste their time in a losing bidding war with Minny"....Luckily Holland isn't stupid and he knows this is just mind games and politics. The Wild are not dumb either...They're not going to out bid any offer and give Parise a ridiculous contract, they just want others to think that they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XCEL Energy Center was not selling out these last 2 seasons. FACT. Take a guess why?

Because the on ice product is s***. People in this state in a way care more about high school hockey and college hockey than the Wild. That's only because the Wild are awful.

Didn't they sellout for like 10 straight years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't they sellout for like 10 straight years?

"THEY" or "WE" you can come out of the closet now...

number9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't they sellout for like 10 straight years?

Judging by the games I went to and I'm sure you attended these last 2 seasons (I live in Mankato MN btw bro) Pretty sure these last two seasons they weren't selling out. Even the announcers on FSN Minnesota mentioned it.

UMAD?

Edited by St. Michael (the Red Wing)
number9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they lost it last season as the longest sold out record so I was off by one season :P

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/760973-10-predictions-for-the-minnesota-wild-in-20112012#/articles/760973-10-predictions-for-the-minnesota-wild-in-20112012/page/7

Either way besides the Wild having a decent fan base. More people in this state care more about College and High School hockey than the Wild. As mentioned earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"THEY" or "WE" you can come out of the closet now...

laugh.gif

Judging by the games I went to and I'm sure you attended these last 2 seasons (I live in Mankato MN btw bro) Pretty sure these last two seasons they weren't selling out. Even the announcers on FSN Minnesota mentioned it.

UMAD?

I live in Howell, MI. I just remember seeing crazy attendance numbers a couple years ago for a team that hasn't made the playoffs in 4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0