View Single Post
05-22-2013, 12:00 PM
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,484
vCash: 178
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
1 - On the Burrows thing, the first thing I do is employ a recently retired veteran referee to discuss how to fix our referee situation plus help us deal with referee situations in the future. He'd also help with referee tendencies and things of that nature. If he says Burrows isn't a problem, then trading Burrows only becomes a questions of what we can get for Burrows vs Booth, if he says Burrows is a problem that will haunt us with the refs going forward, I'd trade Burrows immediately...the same applies to other players.
Toews will not shut up about the refs thus far. Would you trade him if some moron insinuated officiating bias? What of Kesler? First and foremost, no consultant or veteran would ever acknowledge even slight bias due to Gillis and/or Aquilini using it as a catalyst to threaten the league. Give that to the media and unless NHL did a wholesale investigation and promptly fired a good portion of their refs, it would be a PR nightmare.

You are advocating we trade a quality player because the refs may dislike us. It is a ridiculous notion, especially since there is no certifiable evidence.

2 - Disagree about your point on the SJ series. The calls discrepancy was enough to change the series completely...I have the penalties as +15 for SJ which is crazy.
And with the exception of game two, what suggests we were remotely the better team that the penalty discrepancy warranted a "complete series change?" Schneider was awful, our powerplay was awful and a good majority of the roster had no impact. Even if we did muscle a game out of that series, we were going to lose playing the way we did, refs or otherwise.

4 - We can agree to disagree on the referee thing. I have a guy that gives me betting tips that does a lot of research on referees as one of his main betting metrics which he uses to great success. There are biases in the referees and they are there to be taken advantage of and the anti-Canucks bias of some referees is so unlikely that it is almost impossible that it's coincidence.
Except it is not universally exclusive to the Canucks. Toronto suffered terrible officiating, Montreal, Pittsburgh and Chicago even. We may see slightly more on a general average but the difference far from what you are implying.

5 - Look at the whole Auger incident (and this is not a discussion about fair or not, just a point of view). Taking calls out on a player for prior incidents (make up calls) is pretty common in the NHL. Auger hammered Burrows for a dive he made in a prior game. Burrows complained in the media which eventually resulted in Auger losing his job. If one of your buddies got fired because someone ratted on him for say, taking a nap at the office, how would you treat the person that ratted them out in the future...probably not too well. It only makes sense that Auger's buddies would treat Burrows and the Canucks poorly after the incident.
Honestly? "If you're going to be a ******, probably best not to tell the guy." And I would wash my hands of it. If some idiot co-worker decides to blatantly voice his bias and has to deal with the ensuing and inevitable drama, I could care else. It is neither my concern nor my problem. I have a job to do and am not going to potentially jeopardize it to "get back" at someone who frankly, ratted out an idiot. And especially would not hold a now three year grudge.

And therein lies my biggest claim to the contrary. Three years? I've known girlfriends with less of an ax to grind in that length of time.

Bourne Endeavor is offline