Jump to content
You are a guest user Click to join the site

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Kraken Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by WordsOfWisdom

  1. No problem. It's my personal pet-peeve lol. Even after I mentioned it and provided a link to the original thread, some members continued on in the duplicate thread. Makes my head explode sometimes. Maybe I'm just more on edge these days.
  2. Common guys you're killing the forum with this crap. This is a personal pet-peeve of mine. Topics of general discussion are in the GENERAL NHL area and there is already a thread for this topic created. Stop trying to hoard the entire forum inside the Flyers section! [end rant]
  3. This topic is already in the General NHL area. Link:
  4. Okay, out of curiosity, I just had to review these. Here's my thoughts: INSTANT FAIL: Anaheim Arizona Boston Buffalo Calgary Colorado Dallas Detroit LA Minnesota New Jersey St. Louis Toronto Winnipeg GOLD STANDARD: Hartford Chicago Columbus Montreal NY Rangers Tampa Bay Washington That's all you need to know.
  5. Hey! Finally a decent Flyers uniform! Here's the link in case anyone was wondering: [Hidden Content]
  6. The latest from the NHL: The NHL could start this season using one schedule model and transition to another, Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said on the NHL @TheRink podcast Friday. Daly said the NHL and NHL Players' Association are considering a schedule model with all teams hosting games in their home arenas and another that requires all teams to play in hub cities that would be determined based on where there are the fewest COVID-19 cases. "We have to build in flexibility for the hiccups that we expect will come along and have to expect will come along with potential COVID positives and contact tracing requirements," Daly said. "Some of the difficulties that [Major League] Baseball went through and some of the difficulties that the NFL is currently dealing with, how do we address those situations in the context of our own schedule? Those are all the things we're working on and those are all the things that keep us all up at night as we try to figure this out." Daly said the NHL remains intent on starting next season as early as Jan. 1, preceded by two-week mandatory training camps, including an extra week for the seven teams that were not part of the NHL Return to Play plan last season. He said there has been discussion about allowing teams to hold optional conditioning camps prior to the mandatory training camps. Daly said some NHL teams would prefer to host games in their home arena with or without fans in attendance at some point this season rather than playing in hub cities. But he said it's unclear if that will be possible for all teams because of government restrictions resulting from the spike in COVID-19 cases across North America. "If possible to do so, I think our clubs would much prefer to play in their home buildings even if that means not before fans," Daly said. "Having said that, in some markets, if we dropped the puck tomorrow night, I'm not sure all markets could accommodate a game just by local regulation and health restrictions. That changes on a daily basis; the restrictions that come into effect, the restrictions that go out of effect. That presents its own challenge on just staying on top of what all the conditions are." Daly said a schedule model with multiple hub cities would allow for a safer and more controlled environment. He said the security and safety couldn't be as extreme as it was in Edmonton and Toronto for the Stanley Cup Playoffs last season, but hub cities would allow for limited interactions with the outside world when teams are in market. "You'd obviously want to put those hub cities in places that are experiencing positive experiences on the COVID side," Daly said. "You'd set up some dedicated space and restaurants for the players without the secure perimeters that we had in the bubble cities. That would be the benefit of hub cities. You would be in a situation where teams would travel in, play a bunch of games over a two-week time period and then be able to go home and spend time with their families and their own local practices facilities for a week, and cycle through a season that way." Daly said the NHL and NHLPA remain in constant dialogue about how many games each team will play and what the divisional alignments will look like, and acknowledged some time constraints. "Look, we know there is some urgency here, there is some urgency for making decisions, and while we want to drop the puck on Jan. 1 we also recognize that we're not going to rush into a bad decision just to make it," Daly said. "Whether that Jan. 1 can be a little later, we certainly have flexibility to move it later. We are in regular communication with the clubs. I think the players and the clubs have a fairly good understanding of what a Jan. 1 opening would require. "Realistically, if we're going to start in the first part of January, mandatory training camps are going to have to start in the middle part of December. In some of our markets there continue to be quarantine requirements associated with players coming into town, so you factor those in and you back it up from there. I would ultimately concur with the conclusion that time is getting short." Source: [Hidden Content]
  7. I consider all of this off-season talk to be hypothetical. Joe Thornton is never going to play a game in a Toronto Maple Leafs uniform, and neither will Simmonds. By the time the league gets going again, both of them will be retired. Spezza will retire as well. All of those veteran players will be gone. That leaves Toronto without Kapanen (who I liked) and Johnsson (who was okay I guess but meh). Whenever the league starts up again, Toronto will have a lot of roster spots to fill. It's going to be a very different team and a very different league two years from now. Distinct possibility that a handful of teams will disappear as well. Fans may need to be introduced to the players again. Hope you are doing well Hobie (and others).
  8. I'm curious what the current situation is with the NHL teams. They're all sitting on vacant arena properties with no games being played. Has anyone looked into the losses being incurred by the NHL teams? Any teams in danger of folding yet? What's the status of the players? I assume they're not being paid. Does this year vanish from their contracts? I assume so. Are the players able to practice at all during this time?
  9. Correct! With the provision that a convicted child molester would not be getting a job with kids immediately upon release. Unlike other people who would prevent him from ever working with kids (or ever working again period), I believe there's a second chance that should eventually come... but that period might be another 10 years beyond release (assuming no other convictions of that sort occur again). All other forms of employment however, are on the table. The fact that someone was convicted of a serious crime should not prevent them from obtaining employment in all other forms of jobs. If this guy wants to deliver packages for UPS, so be it. If he wants to work as a computer programmer, so be it. Once the time has been served, they have a clean slate. That means the public should not be allowed to know their location, track their movements, or harass them everywhere they go in perpetuity. If the length of the jail sentence needs to be increased, so be it. Otherwise, they're free when they come out. (The alternative is to just put people in jail forever. If they're never going to be allowed to live a normal life after their release then you might as well give everyone a life sentence until they die or just invoke the death penalty. Bringing back the death penalty is simply an acknowledgement that rehabilitation is not an option for some crimes.) I don't follow his life no. The guy is simply an a-hole. No question about it.
  10. You'll be pleased to know that I won't be watching them either. It'll simply stop being a feeder system for the NHL. Good job OHL! Say goodbye to your league.
  11. One more LIKE and you hit 2000! I have the power to make it happen! Agree 100%! I agree that he's a dirt bag. Absolutely. Sounds like a job for the legal system! Whoops! That's the line I don't cross. Deserves = Opinion of a judge, not the general public. I was thinking about this on my walk today: I bet you all of the NHL owners are worse human beings than this guy. I bet you each and every one of the NHL owners were like this guy at the same age. Food for thought I guess. The tale it tells though is the two-tiered justice system I spoke of earlier where employers are pretending to be judges and are handing out their own punishments based on the court of public opinion. Have there been any incidents in the last four years? Anyway, I think we rocked this topic. I'm giving you your 2000th LIKE. Good job!
  12. Oh lol. Adding a winky face helps. I'm so accustomed to the YouTube comment section where everyone just constantly bashes everyone that it's difficult to tell when people are joking sometimes.
  13. No problem. I keep busy! I don't deny that these clauses exist today. My argument is simply that they shouldn't be allowed to. What happens to employees outside of working hours is none of the company's business. If an employee gets arrested for drugs, thrown in jail, and can't show up to work, only then would an employer be allowed to fire them in my view. Simple as that. All major league violations of human rights and freedoms. In no way and on no planet should an employer be allowed to force someone into rehab, force the center to give them reports on their progress, and make them submit to random testing. Absolutely not. Drug users are punished by the legal system and the employer should have no knowledge of their conviction, no knowledge of their current rehabilitation status, and should not be allowed to test them for anything. Again my opinions is that when the employee is off the clock, they can post whenever and wherever they want to, on any social media site they want to, without any restrictions. (Other than giving away trade secrets or pretending to speak on behalf of the company as discussed previously.) The employer is not allowed by law to restrict the behaviour of employees outside of working hours. Thanks. I know it's a touchy subject, and I know the guy in this latest story was a dirt bag of a teen, but the point I'm trying to make is that they won't be dirt bags in the future. They're going to be normal people like you and me who simply say something "unpopular" or "controversial" and that will be enough to invoke the same kind of punishment. It's essentially "China-law" applied to employment. We are allowing employers to be dictators in our lives and nobody is pushing back against an increasingly invasive set of restrictions due to employers getting more and more bold.
  14. It's not "anti-employer". It's about personal rights and freedoms, especially the right to privacy and the clear separation between work life and personal life. It's about limiting the power of the employer to the workplace because the alternative is giving up control of your life. The situations we are seeing today are unprecedented. This is a direct result of the impact of social media and the ability to make anything go "viral". Employers now have access to information they never previously had. They can pry into the personal lives of employees in a manner which would have been impossible even 15-20 years ago. It's a loophole that needs to be closed. Where does someone draw the line? Which infractions are bad enough for the team to release someone? Does it depend on nothing other than whether or not the story trends on social media? Why have a justice system at all then? Seems to me that you're happy with employers taking care of criminal matters instead of courts. LOL. Perhaps the most pitiful insult ever. A communist would be in favour of the government running their life. That's even worse!
  15. Without knowing the details here (assuming it occurred outside work, assuming they're not driving an ambulance, and assuming their DUI didn't land them in jail) then I say that's definitely wrong. The law hands out punishment. After that, the employer should not even be aware that the employee had a DUI at all. It is not their business. That should be made illegal.
  16. lol I would call that a Confidentiality Agreement, and those already exist and have existed for decades. It makes perfect sense for a company to protect its information and its trade secrets. It makes perfect sense that someone can't speak on behalf of the company unless they are a designated representative of that company. Where I draw the line is when companies try to protect their image by limiting free speech or by trying to control the actions of their workers when they're not at work. The "protecting our image" thing is a ruse. It's just an excuse for more control. The law needs to make it very clear that companies have nothing to do with the personal lives and personal speech of their employees and the law needs to be written such that employers cannot terminate someone for conduct that occurs outside of work. It needs to be one of those things that falls under the clause of "wrongful termination" otherwise there's no limit to how it can be abused by employers. (Give an inch, they take a mile as the saying goes.) Anyway, I think we covered this topic nicely.
  17. I said should be lol. That's what it should be.
  18. I'm not disputing that they can. I'm disputing whether they should be allowed to do so. In my view the answer is no. A Code of Conduct should be legally limited to performance while on-the-job. It would cover how an employee conducts themselves while they are working (or while in uniform let's say). It should not be used a tool to control how people live their lives outside work otherwise there's no end to what can be inside it. That's a Pandora's Box if there ever was one. Criminal background checks should only reveal severe criminal activities to employers (murder, rape, etc.). Anything that isn't a severe crime should not be on that record and therefore not accessible to employers. (Keeping people out of work doesn't help anyone.) That background check is already an invasion of privacy (technically) and where does it stop? Today it's a criminal background check. Tomorrow it's a background check into your shopping habits, your travel habits, or your social media post history. The only thing employers need to know when they hire someone is whether they're qualified to do the job or not. Everything else is information they would LIKE to have just to pry into people's lives. Nobody is ever going to turn down access to more information if they can get it. Example: Maybe an employer is hiring a female sales rep and (knowing that sex sells) they want to see what she looks like in various outfits. Since they can't ask for that during a job interview (yet), they might (in the future) demand access to Facebook, Twitter, etc. and gain access to those social media accounts so they can view her photo albums to see how attractive looking she is in bikinis, short dresses, etc. That way the company can hire their 10/10 sales rep with confidence. Okay so here's a question: Twenty years from now when this kid (guy) goes to apply for a job (after 20 years of unemployment) is the mother of this kid going to send the videos to every employer he interviews with so he gets rejected? There is such a thing as punishing someone "in perpetuity" by punishing them over and over again for that same crime. You can only punish a person ONCE for committing a crime. They have to commit a NEW crime to get punished again. My two cents.
  19. Okay now I think I'm fully "up" on events: So basically the Coyotes knew about his past, drafted him anyway, word got out through social media about his prior charges, the Coyotes got negative PR for it and as a result... they released him. In other words, everyone comes out looking bad yet the Coyotes want to paint themselves as the heroes for releasing him.
  20. I updated my previous post to include: Assault charge Fine Community service Jail/juvie/boarding school (due to the extended nature of the abuse) Court ordered shrink I'm happy to tack on lots of legal punishment..... but it stops with the justice system in my opinion. Meaning once he's been punished for it by a judge, that's it. The NHL doesn't get to tack on more. There needs to be a law written that employers cannot implement their own form of justice on employees with prior criminal records. It's outside the scope of their duty as employers and outside their area of expertise.
  21. Admittedly, I'm not up on the details of this case. My first thought was that he probably uttered the N-word to a black kid on his high school hockey team and here we go today. Looks like he was much more disturbed. Sounds like he was headed towards criminal charges. But those consequences are legal punishment through the court system, not by employers. If I work at Home Depot and I get into a car crash on my way back from the Leafs game, my Home Depot supervisor shouldn't be called to the scene to assess the accident and whether I was fault, whether I was drinking, etc... It's none of their business. It's for the police/judge to decide, not employers. Once charges are dropped or time has been served, that's it. It's a clean slate. Employers shouldn't even know about a person's criminal record once they have served their punishment unless it's something severe and poses a direct threat to safety (ie: a pedo being around kids, or a rapist being around women, etc.). If your crime was that you stole $200 five years ago or you punched some guy in a bar and knocked his teeth out when you were drunk, those types of crimes should be "erased" from an employer's view. If they can't read about it in the news (because it's not newsworthy) they shouldn't be able to know about it. To me, the correct outcome here is an assault charge, fine, community service, and then that's it. If this was many instances of abuse over a *prolonged* period of time, I'd put him in jail/juvie/whatever you want to call it and send him to a shrink. Once he's been hit with all that, it's over though. It's a new day going forward and the NHL should have no knowledge of this. The problem I have is that employers are trying to institute a two-tiered system of justice whereby you are first punished by the legal system and then brought to "court" by your employer and put on trial again where your boss pretends to be a judge and hands out arbitrary punishment based on how the wind is blowing that particular day. My two cents.
  22. What I mean is that IF they knew in advance... AND they decided to select him anyway... then this action means that it was a "throw-away" draft pick. They selected him specifically so they could "send a message" by releasing him. Had they bypassed him, nobody would have known who he was or what he did. Selecting and releasing makes public what he did. Here's an analogy: A shoplifter gets caught shoplifting. If you quietly escort them to a back room, talk to them, and ban them from the store, nobody in the store knows that a shoplifter has been caught. On the other hand, if you post a sign outside the store saying "WE CAUGHT THIS GUY SHOPLIFTING" and then proceed to cane him in front of customers at the main entrance, then it sends a message to other would-be shoplifters that "this will happen to you if we catch you shoplifting here". That's what this was. A sign and fire to send a PR message. It wouldn't have had the same effect if every team quietly bypassed him. They wanted everyone to KNOW why he wasn't picked.
  23. Based on that quote alone this appears to be nothing more than a political play aimed at the BLM crowd. In other words, they're trying to BUY fans by trying to jump on the BLM bandwagon. If they had quietly NOT selected him, it wouldn't have sent the same PR message. They specifically selected him to "fire" him and make their reason public. My two cents...
  24. I guess the question is simply this: Is the NHL going to be filled with the best hockey players in the world going forward or the most polite hockey players in the world? Do we want a league of alpha males or a league of beta males? The Broad Street Bullies were an entire team of bullies. You were supposed to be somewhat nasty and a badass to be a hockey player. These are gladiators. They're men. They're not supposed to be "sensitive". Issues like these should be buried. They should never become public (because quite frankly nobody cares). The courts don't even look at trivial cases like this when they're four years old because the incident is long since forgotten. A teenage male does lots of wild and crazy things. They're allowed to call people names. In what world does an employer get to look into your far distant past and not hire you because you said a mean word to someone? By that standard, NOBODY ever gets hired anywhere. NHL: "Yes WoW, it says here in our notes that you once told a kid to F off back in grade 5. That's bullying and we don't accept that in our policy. Therefore, we can't hire you for the position of VP. Thank you for applying." The league has gone down a path that leads off a cliff in my view.
  25. F__k sakes I want the old NHL back. (For real.) Wind the clock back to the 1990's. I know I'd get the neutral zone trap back but the hitting and the head shots (ie: Scott Stevens) makes up for it. I'm so tired of this crap. Is this a professional sports league played by MEN (with actual functioning testicles) or a group therapy session on how to feel your feelings? Your employer doesn't need to "teach" you anything. They pay you to play hockey and everything that's not hockey is none of their concern. If I worked at Home Depot, I don't need my employer "teaching" me how to drive, what car to buy, who I should date, how I should dress, what music I should listen to, what bars I should frequent, etc...... Enough! And then to fault him for something four YEARS ago? Enough! What happened to this league? When did the fans become tougher than the players? Sorry for the rant. There's nothing to talk about these days NHL wise and stories like these drive me nuts. You don't have to like your team mates, and I don't care if someone is a bully. If there's a problem, drop the gloves and solve it on the ice man to man.

Game Room 1

    You don't have permission to chat.
    • Create New...