View Single Post
05-22-2013, 12:43 PM
Registered User
604's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,561
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Toews will not shut up about the refs thus far. Would you trade him if some moron insinuated officiating bias? What of Kesler?
I'm sure you can see the difference between complaining about refereeing and openly stating that a ref used a personal bias to "punish" a player which directly resulted the result of a game. You can certainly see the difference.

In one instance a person fired, in the other, one doesn't.

Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
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.
People acknowledge completely illegal things behind closed doors all the time. I'm sure referees talk about players they had and incidents they didn't like for a very long time. The whole idea that the Canucks are going to threaten the league is asinine. If the Canucks decide to "take down" the league how does that help the Canucks?

Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
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.
Let's say there is no certifiable evidence but our referee consultant basically tells us that we need to do it or else we will continue to get the shaft from some referees. Is it still a bad idea? Would you rather fight the referees with Burrows or trade him and be done with the whole mess?

Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
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.
The fact that were winning game 1 before a few questionable calls led to the Sharks tying the game. The fact that we were winning game 2 with a minute left despite having questionable calls against us. The fact that we were winning game 4 until we got called with questionable late penalties late in the 3rd and in overtime.

Winning and losing affects perception a lot, we lost in 4 which makes you believe there was a huge gulf between the team but the reality is, it only take a little shift for a win to become a loss and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
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.
I make money based on referee bias. It's not always against a team, a lot of time it's based on how well referees can handle pressure form home crowds.

I agree, the standard for the level of refereeing in the league is terrible. I hate the NHL but love hockey so I deal with it.

Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
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.
People hold grudges forever. Breakups happen in different ways, I'm going to bet that any girl you had a bad breakup with will never tell another girl that you are a good guy.

At work, and in business, relationships mean a lot. I had a bad experience with one firm (kind of upset one of my clients). Now I won't refer them any clients and if I get asked about them I usually recommend alternatives...I'm not going out of my way to screw them but I am certainly not going out of my way to help them either and they would lose any 50/50 decisions that I'm involved in. Does it kill their firm that I won't send any work there way? Nope, probably only costs them about $100K a year at this point (four clients) with that number growing as other colleagues ask me what I think of them. (For those who know me on here in real life - it's not my old firm whom I have a great relationship with).

604 is offline