HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ceremonies for Bure and Naslund Planned

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-06-2010, 01:04 PM
  #76
Awesomesauce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Murzyn View Post
The Bure saga as you describe it reads to me like this:

Bure was angry that someone would dare suggest he would ever "blackmail" the Canucks by withholding his services.

And to demonstrate his anger, he blackmailed the Canucks and withheld his services.
He played for more then a year after asking for a trade and he wasn't just angry about the public treatment he was angry about continue having the Canucks try to hose him on money issues. For example, refusing to pay him during the lockout even though both sides agreed that he was owed it. Hell Bure even waited until the lockout was over to get his pay, and the Canucks still refused to give him the money even though again, both sides agreed he was owed it.

In retrospect the team management from that era really were total asshats.

Awesomesauce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:05 PM
  #77
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Tripper View Post
i suppose that's the problem then...just because newspaper articles don't exist presenting the management point of view (which is often the case in contract disputes, as it's easier to gain access to the player's perspective once he's demanding a trade) doesn't mean the other side of the story doesn't hold water

it's kind of silly debating it because the whole point of bringing bure back to honour him is to bury the hatchet no matter who's fault the breakdown in trust between the parties was
Pardon??? The Canucks historically have been well known for getting their message out in the press through friendly media guys. They made an art form of hatchet jobs in the media.

The problem is some posters persist in believing a version of events that do not hold up under scrutiny.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:06 PM
  #78
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
On the advice of one Mike Gillis.
I read your above article and what I really see is this; Bure played his partial rookie season, played one full season (scored 60 goals, I believe) and either in the summer of '93 - after just 1 and 1/2 seasons or very very early into season 3 was already asking for a trade out of Vancouver.

Demanding a trade after just a season and a half and then continuing for the next 5 years about a trade?? He is a bigger AHole then I thought.

The rest of what you posted is really no evidence at all - except that Griffiths tried to do damage control.

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:10 PM
  #79
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Murzyn View Post
Like an audio recording of it not happening?
I already posted a video in which Pat Quinn says the threatened hold out during the Stanley Cup never happened.

Also a denial from Arthur Griffiths, Ron Salcer and Bure himself. Yet some (like Cherry) continued to believe it and some posters repeat it as if it were gospel to this day.

Basic rule of evidence - if what you allege is not refuted then it is taken as proven. Works for me.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:15 PM
  #80
Dana Murzyn
Registered User
 
Dana Murzyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me1ch View Post
People tend to take the feeling of those who are good at their jobs for granted. He is good at it, so he must like to do it, right here, for me, personally. And if he doesn't, I'll take great offense.
I'll bet when Bure, Yashin, Pronger, and Heatley get together for their regular off-season Scrabble nights, they commiserate about this very injustice.

Dana Murzyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:18 PM
  #81
Jack Tripper
I Don't Even...
 
Jack Tripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,446
vCash: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Basic rule of evidence - if what you allege is not refuted then it is taken as proven. Works for me.
c'mon, be more genuine than that...silence doesn't always create an adverse inference, especially when a party isn't given an opportunity to respond...last time i checked, tony gallagher isn't always biting at the bit to go to canucks management and get the inside scoop on contract negotiations from the management's perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The problem is some posters persist in believing a version of events that do not hold up under scrutiny.
it's not like this is a criminal inquiry where we can investigate and persue all the facts...we have very little information outside of bure's first hand info, which really boils down to which party is perceived to have more credibility

it's clear where you stand on bure's credibility and thus you state bure's version of events as your opinion (which doesn't make it factually accurate, by the way)

i really fault myself here for being dragged into an argument with wetcoaster, too much coffee this morning i guess

Jack Tripper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:21 PM
  #82
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 9000 View Post
I read your above article and what I really see is this; Bure played his partial rookie season, played one full season (scored 60 goals, I believe) and either in the summer of '93 - after just 1 and 1/2 seasons or very very early into season 3 was already asking for a trade out of Vancouver.

Demanding a trade after just a season and a half and then continuing for the next 5 years about a trade?? He is a bigger AHole then I thought.

The rest of what you posted is really no evidence at all - except that Griffiths tried to do damage control.
You seem to have an odd view of evidence - direct evidence is what one of the parties (or a witness) says occurred - in this case Bure, Salcer, Griffiths, Quinn, Burke. Plus there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that supports Bure's account.

As Bure notes there were problems from the time he sought to leave Russia and he had little support from the Canucks. He was left hanging in the USA and ultimately had to pay part of his own transfer fee to secure his release so he could play.

Then he was promised if he performed and proved he could play in the NHL then a new contract would be put in place. He performed and the Canucks reneged.

So there were issues from the get-go.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:22 PM
  #83
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I already posted a video in which Pat Quinn says the threatened hold out during the Stanley Cup never happened.

Also a denial from Arthur Griffiths, Ron Salcer and Bure himself. Yet some (like Cherry) continued to believe it and some posters repeat it as if it were gospel to this day.

Basic rule of evidence - if what you allege is not refuted then it is taken as proven. Works for me.
Well Duh, of course Quinn is gonna go on TV and try to deny the blackmail incident. Bure was still a canuck and the team was still hoping for good things from him. I would be more surprised if Quinn went on TV and said it was true.
If the blackmail happened or not, Quinn's interview on HNICis not evidence one way or another - it's simply damage control. You must see that - don't you?

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:28 PM
  #84
Dana Murzyn
Registered User
 
Dana Murzyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I already posted a video in which Pat Quinn says the threatened hold out during the Stanley Cup never happened.

Also a denial from Arthur Griffiths, Ron Salcer and Bure himself. Yet some (like Cherry) continued to believe it and some posters repeat it as if it were gospel to this day.

Basic rule of evidence - if what you allege is not refuted then it is taken as proven. Works for me.
We got our signals crossed.

I thought you were referring to Bure's contention that the blackmail rumour started within the Canucks organization. It would be next to impossible (and unreasonable for anyone to expect) the Canucks to prove that this wasn't the case.

Presumption of innocence and all that.

Dana Murzyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:30 PM
  #85
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
You seem to have an odd view of evidence - direct evidence is what one of the parties (or a witness) says occurred - in this case Bure, Salcer, Griffiths, Quinn, Burke. Plus there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that supports Bure's account.

As Bure notes there were problems from the time he sought to leave Russia and he had little support from the Canucks. He was left hanging in the USA and ultimately had to pay part of his own transfer fee to secure his release so he could play.

Then he was promised if he performed and proved he could play in the NHL then a new contract would be put in place. He performed and the Canucks reneged.

So there were issues from the get-go.
Bure asked for a trade a year and a half into his canuck career - that came directly from your post.

As for Bure being too big for vancouver - that he said (more than once) while being employed by vancouver. He also said that the league should step in and help him get out of vancouver. These things aren't after the fact Bure recollections, these are things he openly said while being part of the vancouver canucks.
He also said BTW, that he didn't much care about the stanley cup and that his heroes all won the olympic gold and that was the pinnacle of hockey - being Russian, I don't really blame him for that - it is what it is.

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:31 PM
  #86
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Tripper View Post
c'mon, be more genuine than that...silence doesn't always create an adverse inference, especially when a party isn't given an opportunity to respond...last time i checked, tony gallagher isn't always biting at the bit to go to canucks management and get the inside scoop on contract negotiations from the management's perspective



it's not like this is a criminal inquiry where we can investigate and persue all the facts...we have very little information outside of bure's first hand info, which really boils down to which party is perceived to have more credibility

it's clear where you stand on bure's credibility and thus you state bure's version of events as your opinion (which doesn't make it factually accurate, by the way)

i really fault myself here for being dragged into an argument with wetcoaster, too much coffee this morning i guess
The Canucks have never been shy about using house reporters to get their version out as seen with Krutov and Nedved.

The problem they have here is that Bure's version hangs together and seems credible when you look at all the direct and circumstantial evidence.

Absent evidence that refutes Bure's clear statements, I go with that version.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:33 PM
  #87
tesplen
Registered User
 
tesplen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God View Post
I'd like to have a number retired for us fans. Maybe number 7 to show that we're the 7th man on the ice?
Chris Zimmerman account spotted

tesplen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:34 PM
  #88
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Murzyn View Post
We got our signals crossed.

I thought you were referring to Bure's contention that the blackmail rumour started within the Canucks organization. It would be next to impossible (and unreasonable for anyone to expect) the Canucks to prove that this wasn't the case.

Presumption of innocence and all that.
Presumption of innocence does not apply here - that is a particular concept that applies only in very limited circumstances - during a criminal trial.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:39 PM
  #89
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 9000 View Post
Well Duh, of course Quinn is gonna go on TV and try to deny the blackmail incident. Bure was still a canuck and the team was still hoping for good things from him. I would be more surprised if Quinn went on TV and said it was true.
If the blackmail happened or not, Quinn's interview on HNICis not evidence one way or another - it's simply damage control. You must see that - don't you?
I disagree.

The timelines and way the denials were made first by Griffiths and then reluctantly by Quinn suggest the opposite to me.

The Canucks did it (likely McPhee and I cannot believe without the blessing of Quinn). At the time Gallagher reported that he was told at the GM meetings during the Stanley Cup by two GMs that it was a Canucks official who had told them of the threatened holdout.

Plus Quinn was quoted as saying he was told by "one of his guys" about the threatened holdout, then he amended it to say it was not Bure but his agent (which sent Salcer off the deep end) but Quinn would later backtrack on both statements.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:47 PM
  #90
Dana Murzyn
Registered User
 
Dana Murzyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Presumption of innocence does not apply here - that is a particular concept that applies only in very limited circumstances - during a criminal trial.
Don't go sideways on me, Wetcoaster. You get the point:

Bure claims the Canucks started a nasty rumour about him as a negotiating tactic. You seem to believe him because no one has proven otherwise (at least, this is how I interpreted your comment). Which is weird and backwards.

Dana Murzyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:51 PM
  #91
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I disagree.

The timelines and way the denials were made first by Griffiths and then reluctantly by Quinn suggest the opposite to me.

The Canucks did it (likely McPhee and I cannot believe without the blessing of Quinn). At the time Gallagher reported that he was told at the GM meetings during the Stanley Cup by two GMs that it was a Canucks official who had told them of the threatened holdout.

Plus Quinn was quoted as saying he was told by "one of his guys" about the threatened holdout, then he amended it to say it was not Bure but his agent (which sent Salcer off the deep end) but Quinn would later backtrack on both statements.
I dont think there is a GM in the league (OK, maybe Clarke) who wants to risk his career and reputation by going on HNIC and stating that his star player is blackmailing them. And, as far as after the fact goes - why bother, Quinn still has to work in this league. Slagging former players does not build a good career. I think Quinn took the high road and tried to bury the issue.

I think that management starting that kind or rumor in the midst of a playoff run is not only stupid, but it serves no purpose.

The Canucks even tried building their team around Bure by getting Mogilny and Messier and trading away Linden. Nothing they ever did was good enough for Pavel, he simply didn't want to play in Vancouver - it's so painfully obvious.

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 02:23 PM
  #92
me1ch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 43
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Murzyn View Post
I'll bet when Bure, Yashin, Pronger, and Heatley get together for their regular off-season Scrabble nights, they commiserate about this very injustice.
It is not an injustice. It is only an entitlement some people think they have.

me1ch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 02:35 PM
  #93
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Murzyn View Post
Don't go sideways on me, Wetcoaster. You get the point:

Bure claims the Canucks started a nasty rumour about him as a negotiating tactic. You seem to believe him because no one has proven otherwise (at least, this is how I interpreted your comment). Which is weird and backwards.
Given the Canucks have done such things in the past, I find it quite easy to believe.

I believe Bure because no one from the Canucks has ever denied his claim. Plus you have reports from two GMs that they heard this from a Canucks official.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 04:54 PM
  #94
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Given the Canucks have done such things in the past, I find it quite easy to believe.

I believe Bure because no one from the Canucks has ever denied his claim. Plus you have reports from two GMs that they heard this from a Canucks official.
So, you go on and on about a lack of integrity from Quinn and the canucks mgnt., yet he goes on HNIC to do the obligatory damage control of his meal ticket and that you believe?

For all you spew about legal issues, you sure have a lacking of sociological issues.

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 05:49 PM
  #95
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 9000 View Post
So, you go on and on about a lack of integrity from Quinn and the canucks mgnt., yet he goes on HNIC to do the obligatory damage control of his meal ticket and that you believe?

For all you spew about legal issues, you sure have a lacking of sociological issues.
I disagree.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 09:11 PM
  #96
QuickDynamite
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Abu Dhabi
Country: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 4,815
vCash: 500
I don't have a problem with either of their jerseys being retired. Both were great players for this franchise.

QuickDynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 09:57 PM
  #97
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 16,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I disagree.

The timelines and way the denials were made first by Griffiths and then reluctantly by Quinn suggest the opposite to me.

The Canucks did it (likely McPhee and I cannot believe without the blessing of Quinn). At the time Gallagher reported that he was told at the GM meetings during the Stanley Cup by two GMs that it was a Canucks official who had told them of the threatened holdout.

Plus Quinn was quoted as saying he was told by "one of his guys" about the threatened holdout, then he amended it to say it was not Bure but his agent (which sent Salcer off the deep end) but Quinn would later backtrack on both statements.
A couple years after being fired here, Quinn was on Dan Russell's show (yeah, I listened to it back then) and said that one of his biggest regrets was going on CBC and going off on Cherry and defending Bure. Said it 'cost him a friendship' with Cherry and basically that the allegations that Bure threatened to hold out were true.

Unfortunately this was on the radio over a decade ago so I don't have a link.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 11:08 PM
  #98
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
According to Wetcoaster's post; Bure said the canucks "promised" him a trade back in 1993. 1993? That's so unrealistic it doesn't pass the giggle test. There is no way that the canucks saw Bure score over 30 goals as a rookie then 60 goals the next year and agreed to trade the guy.

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 11:24 PM
  #99
Meganuck*
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal 9000 View Post
According to Wetcoaster's post; Bure said the canucks "promised" him a trade back in 1993. 1993? That's so unrealistic it doesn't pass the giggle test. There is no way that the canucks saw Bure score over 30 goals as a rookie then 60 goals the next year and agreed to trade the guy.
Wouldnt the Canucks atleast try to clear the air about this misunderstanding?

SOB earlier in the year had said the coaches wanted him to "fight more" after which point, AV said that wasnt true. Gillis backed him up publicly.

SOB then said he "interpreted them wrong".

Meganuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2010, 05:10 AM
  #100
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
A couple years after being fired here, Quinn was on Dan Russell's show (yeah, I listened to it back then) and said that one of his biggest regrets was going on CBC and going off on Cherry and defending Bure. Said it 'cost him a friendship' with Cherry and basically that the allegations that Bure threatened to hold out were true.

Unfortunately this was on the radio over a decade ago so I don't have a link.
So Pat Quinn lies... that is no surprise given his history.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.