Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
I don't know anything about Kane the person away from hockey, the person I have seen as part of hockey has some serious issues.
|
Right, that's the whole argument.
This isn't about morality, although some posters are probably doing that as well.
This is purely about whether or not it's a smart idea for a team with a fragile psyche to bring a volatile personality with a litany of negative acts happen around him in just the last year that made his team decide, "you know what? I don't care if he can score 20 goals. It's just not worth it to have him around this team.", and then voided his contract just to be rid of him.
This isn't the first time in his history that he's run into personality conflicts either, but it also became an issue of him consistently violating league policies on gambling, COVID, etc. He's not employable at all at this point.
This is the very definitions of "danger, Will Robinson, danger!" red flags around a player that may sink the chemistry, demeanor, or culture of a team. The Oilers have had some dark days lately when they struggled to win. Can you imagine if they have that sort of problem while ALSO dealing with Kane's antics?
It's just a terrible decision, and the Oilers deserved to be mocked because they're so desperate for it to work out. (Narrator: It didn't.)
I have no doubt that Kane does the things he does because he's hurting somewhere deep inside, but it doesn't mean that teams have to give him a job while he's sorting his crap out.
Honest question, if Fleury were about 15-20 years younger, knowing what you know about his public stance on many issues of late, would you even consider employing him either? No, you tell him to go get help and sort things out and then maybe you'll consider him down the line. That serves both the player and the organization.
This is terribly selfish by both parties involved, and it won't end well for any of them.