No, I don't think they're playing well. But firing a coach 10 games into his NHL career seems rash. Back to the point I was making, he hasn't had one of the best players on the team and several key players have already missed time due to injury.
It wouldn't be fair to fire a guy before he's given a chance to prove himself with the full roster.
It's sad to me that there are still so many Wings fans that don't give Cleary the respect that he deserves. Ego and Greed? Give me a f***ing break. Taking advantage of people? Are you f***ing serious?
I'm not sure why I even bother responding to such rebuttal. Pure ignorance...
I like Cleary enough and I think some people take it way too far, but he definitely outstayed his welcome. He should've known better last year. This year was ridiculous. The only thing I'm not sure about is the AHL bit. I thought I heard that he was open to the two way deal and if he didn't make it, he'd be a sort of player/coach in GR. I thought that was the point of this contract, and why he was offered yet another opportunity this year. If that was the spirit of the deal and then he decided against it, it does sour me on all of this Dan Cleary charity somewhat.
Still though, all in all, I like Dan Cleary for what he brought to this team in his better years and it's tough to knock him for wanting to stay a Red Wing. I wish he'd have gone out a bit more gracefully though.
They're denying it was. But how does a bag containing the items the victim wore that night, her identity, and the initials of the attending nurses find its way to the mom's doorstep? Somebody's lying, and either way it's disgusting.
Posted by kipwinger
on 22 September 2015 - 11:34 AM
Imagine if you reported a physical assault, as in, a physical beating you received.
Now imagine everyone assuming you're lying about it because earlier in the night you'd been seen drinking beer with the guy who later beat you.
Seem crazy? That's because it is. NOTHING that happened at the bar earlier in the night precludes Patrick Kane from having committed a crime after they went back to his house. Nothing.
Attempts to explain way the seriousness of the allegation based on something that was happening hours earlier are completely nuts. By that rationale a man couldn't rape his wife because she's probably agree to have sex with him at some point in the past.
Posted by kipwinger
on 22 September 2015 - 11:01 AM
What? I took the position that no one knows what the facts are, and our personal bias will in the meantime fill in the blanks as to what we 'think' happened. That is called having an open mind before the actual trial starts where they present the facts.
It seems that you have already assumed Kane is guilty, and that anything anyone says contrary is messed up to you. That, my friend is your bias, and exactly what I am referring to.
Any more messed up than thinking that a woman who reported a crime is a money hungry liar (as quite a few around here have not so subtly insinuated)?
This woman has done NOTHING to have her character called into question. She reported an alleged crime, and obeyed the directives of the legal system thereafter.
What should she have done differently in order to be taken seriously?
Not talked to the media...oh wait, she didn't.
Reported the crime immediately...oh wait, she did.
Refuse to settle the case out of court...Yep, did that too.
Apparently, if you're a woman (and you want to be taken seriously when reporting a sexual crime), you better have never been drunk or horny in your life because god knows you can't be raped if you made out with a guy in a bar earlier in the night.
This is shameful. What if you reported a stolen car and everyone assumed you were lying in order to defraud the insurance company? Oh, that's right, it woudn't happen because nobody is insane enough to assume that kind of thing regularly occurs. Unless you're a woman, and you report a rape...then you're obviously weaving a nefarious web of deceit.
The most obnoxious thing about this is that nobody actually believe the b.s. they're spewing.
If your daughter, or sister, or girlfriend, or wife, or mother reported an alleged sexual assualt, nobody here would think "well she was hitting on that guy at the bar, so I've got to consider the possibility that maybe she just wants his money".
Posted by vladdy16
on 18 September 2015 - 07:07 PM
You're right. The Wings would never allow a star player who was committing a crime, but not charged, with, let's say, hypothetically speaking, statutory rape, to continue playing under such heinous circumstances. Classy Wings fans absolutely would never, ever continue to support such a player either. So glad we're not like those awful Blackhawk fans who would cheer for someone who hasn't been charged with any crime. Thankfully that would never actually happen.
This does nothing to address what she said. She was very specific in saying she speaks only to how she herself would handle the Wings handling the same situation in the same way. Please desist in attempting to rile others up.
Witnessing all those classy moves by NHL, I fully expect Battman demands money LAK saved on Voynov contract to pay off that b**** who's sueing our innocent little boy Patric +20c to compensate him overpaying that taxi ride.
Posted by kipwinger
on 09 September 2015 - 08:55 AM
If Kopitar or Quick got caught with pills would their contracts be terminated?
Lol. About as quickly as Kane's will be. Sports is a business, and the people that run sports teams operate them as such. Every fan wants championships, new stadiums, and flashy free agents. You do that by winning and putting butts in the seats. And sometimes, to do that, GMs are willing to ignore the ethical imperatives. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it is what it is. Businesses exist to make money, not to enforce the social good. Expecting them to do the latter, rather than the former, will always disappoint.
Our very own Mike Illitch does plenty of unethical things in the name of our team. Nobody calls him out on it. So lets not pretend its just a Kings or Hawks problem.