Page 7 of 7

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:00 am
by Jyrki21
ClamRussel wrote: A defence attorney is supposed to be there to insure a FAIR trial...but has morphed into now getting their client off at all costs regardless of guilt.
It's off-topic, so I apologize, but you are incorrect. A defense attorney is supposed to pursue every avenue to get his/her client off. The Crown (in Canada) is the one with added responsibilities to ensure a fair trial. If you're ever wrongly accused with a crime or overcharged, you'll understand precisely why it's like this.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:29 pm
by Mantle
Jyrki21 wrote:
ClamRussel wrote: A defence attorney is supposed to be there to insure a FAIR trial...but has morphed into now getting their client off at all costs regardless of guilt.
It's off-topic, so I apologize, but you are incorrect. A defense attorney is supposed to pursue every avenue to get his/her client off. The Crown (in Canada) is the one with added responsibilities to ensure a fair trial. If you're ever wrongly accused with a crime or overcharged, you'll understand precisely why it's like this.
I am a law student.

I agree with ClamRussel... The defence attorney is supposed to make sure that the accused gets every advantage he is FAIRLY entitled to. That does NOT include lying. The "best result" is not always acquittal. Depending on the circumstances, the best result may be a reduction of charge from murder to manslaughter, or a skillful mitigation where a likely jail sentence is reduced to a large fine.

You are right in that if the Crown discovers evidence that exonerates the accused, they are required to present that evidence to the accused. But that is the limit of their requirement to "play fair".

The fairness of the process is systemic-- in almost all cases the accused receives the benefit of the doubt. It is not based on the "integrity" of the lawyer.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:04 pm
by DavidPratt_
tantalum wrote:You know I seriously think this comes down to Kesler or Cooke right now.

I honestly don't know which one I'd pick.....
The Canucks' salary is hovering very very close to the cap. Let's not kid ourselves - Ryan Kesler got an undeserved pay hike and as a result, someone is getting traded out of Vancouver. I'll be interested to see how Cooke performs in camp. If the Canucks had to deal Cooke, they would obviously target a serviceable player at a lower salary plus perhaps pick up a prospect as well. We'll see. A logical place for Cooke to end up would be LA because Crawford likes Matt Cooke. The only problem is LA is in the same conference as Vancouver and Sean Avery and Matt Cooke have a history dating back to their days in junior in the OHL.

dp

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:25 pm
by Jyrki21
Mantle wrote: I am a law student.
I am a lawyer. Pleased to meet you. :)
Mantle wrote:I agree with ClamRussel... The defence attorney is supposed to make sure that the accused gets every advantage he is FAIRLY entitled to. That does NOT include lying.
Well, yes, that goes without saying. And I don't think anyone ever thinks it does, frankly, or else the system would be very broken.

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:58 pm
by ClamRussel
Jyrki21 wrote:
Mantle wrote: I am a law student.
I am a lawyer. Pleased to meet you. :)
Let me guess, you "come from a long line of litigators."

:P

Sorry, inside joke for the old boy's club here. ;)

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:02 pm
by tuzzi44
lol is that all you guys are?? a bunch of accountants and lawyers??

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:38 pm
by steeda3
Kessler doesn't deserve 1.9 million....He doesn't even deserve a million.

Re: Ryan Kesler signs Offer Sheet with Philadelphia

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:26 pm
by Farhan Lalji
I don't know how you guys feel, but I would've let Kesler walked. I also would've tried to sign Anson Carter.

Seriously - I don't get why Nonis would overpay Kesler ($1,000,000 over market value!), while letting Carter walk.

Carter may not be worth $2.5-$3 mill anywhere else, but the was worth that much here. He was the PERFECT linemate for the Sedins'. Granted, the Sedins' don't need Carter to excel (as they're proving so far), but why tinker with that chemistry? Why risk that?

A few years ago when the WCE line first emerged, would it have been 'smart' to trade away Morrison for defensive help, and elevate Druken or (gulp) Josh Holden to the #1 line? Again - Naslund/Bertuzzi would probably still have been effective, but why take that risk? Why change something that is WORKING? "If the wheel ain't broke, why fix it?"

I would MUCH rather have paid Carter 2.5 million ($600/700,000 than what Nonis wanted to pay him), rather than pay Kesler 1.9 million ($1 mill over what Nonis wanted to pay him).

Could Kesler be a great player one day? You bet. However, isn't the whole point of having young/promising players on the team is to hope that they overachieve? (relative to their salary...which would most likely be fairly low).

I do think Kesler will have a good year this year (Sedin line or not), but I would've let him walk. I also would've signed Carter for 2.5. Successful teams never change things that are working for them. Period.

Re: Ryan Kesler signs Offer Sheet with Philadelphia

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:35 pm
by MarkMM
Farhan Lalji wrote:I don't know how you guys feel, but I would've let Kesler walked. I also would've tried to sign Anson Carter.

Seriously - I don't get why Nonis would overpay Kesler ($1,000,000 over market value!), while letting Carter walk.

Carter may not be worth $2.5-$3 mill anywhere else, but the was worth that much here. He was the PERFECT linemate for the Sedins'. Granted, the Sedins' don't need Carter to excel (as they're proving so far), but why tinker with that chemistry? Why risk that?

A few years ago when the WCE line first emerged, would it have been 'smart' to trade away Morrison for defensive help, and elevate Druken or (gulp) Josh Holden to the #1 line? Again - Naslund/Bertuzzi would probably still have been effective, but why take that risk? Why change something that is WORKING? "If the wheel ain't broke, why fix it?"

I would MUCH rather have paid Carter 2.5 million ($600/700,000 than what Nonis wanted to pay him), rather than pay Kesler 1.9 million ($1 mill over what Nonis wanted to pay him).

Could Kesler be a great player one day? You bet. However, isn't the whole point of having young/promising players on the team is to hope that they overachieve? (relative to their salary...which would most likely be fairly low).

I do think Kesler will have a good year this year (Sedin line or not), but I would've let him walk. I also would've signed Carter for 2.5. Successful teams never change things that are working for them. Period.
I voted for us to let Kesler go, but I understand the principle why we kept him, and properly managed, it could work out.

Regarding Carter, yeah, I wanted Carter back and would have paid him up to $2.5 million, but I think it's hard to compare the two deals, and it will always be this way with Kesler because the situation is so bizarre it defies comparisons of most sorts. We walked away from Carter because we felt he was being unreasonable, and at $3 million/3 years, I personally balked. My take on it is that management figured it was a lost cause and instead of wasting time on a lost deal, they went after other UFA's before it was too late, and signed guys they hoped might have some upside, Bulis being one, to a lesser extent Chouinard (who was signed for reasons other than scoring). By the time Carter's salary demands came down, we'd already spent the allotted cap space on other players and we didn't have room for him, even at his more reasonable price.

Kesler, just an act of buffoonery for Clarke who will have me itching for a year for revenge, but he was signed not because he was worth it, but because it was done on principle. And if I was Nonis, the way my mind would be thinking would be that if I can sign Kesler to an extension, the salary at $1.9 million might become more reasonable, and if he continues to develop, by matching the offer sheet, we'll have him for several more seasons (and it seems Carter was unwilling to sign long-term at $2.5 million), or we could let him walk next season but with more compensation than a 2nd rounder, so it's not as bad a deal as it looks on the surface, provided Nonis is smart, and he's earned the benefit of the doubt from me.

Re: Ryan Kesler signs Offer Sheet with Philadelphia

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:45 pm
by Farhan Lalji
MarkMM wrote:
Farhan Lalji wrote:
Kesler, just an act of buffoonery for Clarke who will have me itching for a year for revenge, but he was signed not because he was worth it, but because it was done on principle.
MarkMM,

Great post. I can't really say much, because I agree on most of what you said. :).

Regarding Clarke however, as much as I'm annoyed over what he did......I love the guy. :) Clarke is a MEAN bastard. If Nonis wasn't our GM, I would've loved to have seen Clarkey be here. :P

One thing about the Sedin twins. MAN, do they look great or what? I know its still too early, but I'm REALLY impressed with what I see so far. I truly believe that the Sedins' can handle being the top line this year. Last year, they flourished as a 2nd line (with presumably easier defenseman to deal with), but I feel that they'll dominate even as a top line.

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:28 pm
by Fred
Hey maybe we can swing a deal for one of Clarke's youngsters & yes the Sedin's did look like they were top flight players last night, head and shoulders above every one else.

Would have been nice if BB had signed them to a long term deal earlier, atleast DN recognised there future

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:36 pm
by Farhan Lalji
Fred wrote:Hey maybe we can swing a deal for one of Clarke's youngsters & yes the Sedin's did look like they were top flight players last night, head and shoulders above every one else.

Would have been nice if BB had signed them to a long term deal earlier, atleast DN recognised there future
LOL,

You know to be honest? I don't even think Clarke wants Kesler as much as we all think. I think Clarke offered the contract sheet to Kesler, knowing fully well that Nonis would match.

A part of me suspects that Nonis annoyed Clarke somehow during the summer (i.e. Clarke wanted to acquire Kesler, but Nonis wouldn't budge). As we all know, there were many Naslund/Gagne rumors floating around, and it broke down in the end. Perhaps the two GM's couldn't agree on Kesler?

A farfetched theory, maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of this was true. :lol:

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:41 pm
by Fred
I don't even think Clarke wants Kesler

and then

Clarke wanted to acquire Kesler, but Nonis wouldn't budge).
A little Irish logic there Farhan :D