Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 11:17 am
Probably something, but probably not a jackpot.
There are two kinds of judges and jurors: men and women*. Most men will be inclined to see Mitchell's side of the argument, and most women (especially, I am told, B.C women judges) hate anything that trivializes sexual assault (the way a lame civil suit could) or implies diminished female agency.
I suspect that the lawyer is hoping for an out-of-court settlement / go-away money. If he goes to trial on contingency, he'll wind up losing money in opportunity costs (assuming he had any other work available), so I expect they will accept a relatively small settlement.
On the scale of the life of a retired successful NHLer, this probably won't be much worse than a minor home repair for the likes of me.
*and yes, an infinitesimal number of intersex people, and a tiny but growing number of the awkwardly gendered, but collectively still statistically insignificant in such considerations.
This will get negotiated after the discovery phase. Both sides will look at the evidence and their respective odds of winning, and go from there. Mitchell will be incentivized to keep this out of court for optics’ sake, so if his team thinks her side will go to court regardless (which would be a smart position to convey) they may want to negotiate regardless the merits of the case.
As for how much, anything that covers her legal fees will be more than what she had before, so it’s to be seen what her price will be.
You ever see groups of gash at airports going on ladies only trips and they do a secret Santa type thing and get embarrassing humorous shirts for each other to wear on the flight.
I've seen I love big cocks with a rooster photo a couple of times when those happen.
Cornuck wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:31 am
Silovs gets the start for opening night with the Pens.
Good for him. He will get to see a lot of pucks.
Lankinen was terrible cap management and terrible asset management. Best case scenario for proving me wrong is Demko can’t play (so a different bad deal….) and Lankinen provides decent goaltending for a team that needs very good goaltending to go anywhere.
I will try not to be a broken record….(scratch)….I will try not to be a broken record….(scratch)…I will try not to be a broken record.
Cornuck wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:31 am
Silovs gets the start for opening night with the Pens.
Good for him. He will get to see a lot of pucks.
Lankinen was terrible cap management and terrible asset management. Best case scenario for proving me wrong is Demko can’t play (so a different bad deal….) and Lankinen provides decent goaltending for a team that needs very good goaltending to go anywhere.
I will try not to be a broken record….(scratch)….I will try not to be a broken record….(scratch)…I will try not to be a broken record.
There's asset management, there's cap management, and there's risk management. It is perhaps in the last category that the limited vision implied in ownership is the biggest obstacle.
I would have said that if Demko wasn't going to have a great season (supported by a goalie who could play enough to minimize his injury risk), then -- as you say -- relying on an adequate goalie wasn't going to get them anywhere, anyway, so I would have made the contingency plan for that outcome taking a shot at a high draft pick. I don't think ownership was going to accept a season write-off, though, so management needed a back-up plan that kept the Canucks in the playoff hunt if the goaltending "if" didn't work out. I expect management saw what you saw, but couldn't take the chance.
Cornuck wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 10:31 am
Silovs gets the start for opening night with the Pens.
Good for him. He will get to see a lot of pucks.
Lankinen was terrible cap management and terrible asset management. Best case scenario for proving me wrong is Demko can’t play (so a different bad deal….) and Lankinen provides decent goaltending for a team that needs very good goaltending to go anywhere.
I will try not to be a broken record….(scratch)….I will try not to be a broken record….(scratch)…I will try not to be a broken record.
There's asset management, there's cap management, and there's risk management. It is perhaps in the last category that the limited vision implied in ownership is the biggest obstacle.
I would have said that if Demko wasn't going to have a great season (supported by a goalie who could play enough to minimize his injury risk), then -- as you say -- relying on an adequate goalie wasn't going to get them anywhere, anyway, so I would have made the contingency plan for that outcome taking a shot at a high draft pick. I don't think ownership was going to accept a season write-off, though, so management needed a back-up plan that kept the Canucks in the playoff hunt if the goaltending "if" didn't work out. I expect management saw what you saw, but couldn't take the chance.
Yeah, I think you describe what they were thinking correctly. But you have to take chances when you aren't already at the top enjoying the payoff of prior chances that paid off.
