Burke says he would have cut Ray Rice

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GettinIggyWithIt

These people are public figures. Everything they do relates to their profession as athletes, and therefore, their sport and league. The NFL and its teams had no choice but to take action.

But clearly they are drafted based on how well they can run/throw/hit, not on what sort of person they are off the field. We'll keep seeing this sort of off the field behaviour until the NFL radically changes how it drafts players. And I frankly don't see that happening. A few teams might back off a player who projects to be an elite linebacker if he runs with a rough crowd off the field, or comes from a violent family background. But will every team? When some teams do draft these guys, they become pro-bowlers, and by good fortune no embarrassing or criminal behaviour comes to light during their careers?

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by New Era

I call BS on Burke's comment. It played well to the crowd, but he'd going to do whatever it takes to win and would be circling the wagons around his franchise player rather than releasing him. I don't believe for a second that Burke would be saying the same things of Mark Giordano cold-cocked his wife. He'd be protecting his captain and saying he would get him the help he needed (standard broiler plate stuff) to rectify issues. There is no way he's cutting lose a top end player because of an off ice issue where there was no conviction on criminal charges. I just think back to his handling of the Bertuzzi-Moore incident and know he wouldn't have the sack to make the move he suggests.

I see your BS and raise you a double-BS on your post.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

What if that player was Patrick Roy or Martin Brodeur?

(there are probably more, I just dont remember)

You cut them loose, get rid of them.

It's a friggin game.......I don't care who the player is.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

If you really believe all this then you don't know the kind of person Burke is (not that I do, but his actions in the community are fairly telling).

Burke had an example where he could have done exactly what he said he would do with the Rice example, and he failed miserably. He circled the wagons as opposed to doing the right thing and making sure Bertuzzi never played hockey again.

You are also, erroneously, equating an on-ice incident with an off-ice incident. You had two willing combatants and a situation that got out of hand.

Two willing combatants? GTFO. Bertuzzi absolutely mugged a defenseless player in an act of violence that had rarely been seen. It was very obvious that Moore wanted nothing to do with Bertuzzi, so save the bull#### of this being two willing combatants. On-ice or off-ice shouldn't matter. A gross act of violence should be dealt with accordingly regardless of where it took place.

I'm sure if you asked Burke about it now he would have some regrets about what went down, and people can learn from their mistakes too.

And he obviously did, knowing he had done wrong, by offering Moore a contract with Anaheim, when he knew the player wouldn't play hockey again.

Violence has context.

You're damn rights there is, and the Bertuzzi incident was one of the most violent incidents in NHL history. If that act had taken place anywhere but on the ice it would have led to criminal charges and Bertuzzi would have ended up in prison. That is the only context that matters. Burke, a lawyer, knew the context of the attack and still circled the wagons.

If you believe that about Burke then obviously you consider him to be one of the worst POSs to walk to earth. He does not give me the same impression.

Yeah, thanks for the false dichotomy. This is not a black and white issue, but we have seen Burke's response to a major incident of violence, under his watch, and what the outcome was. Is it possible he could change his stripes? Sure. Do I think he would? No, because a decision of that magnitude is not just his call. You are talking about a multi-million dollar investment. I doubt he is going to do anything to cripple his enterprise when no criminal charges have been filed or upheld. Burke is going to do what is best for his hockey team, even if it is a little distasteful from time-to-time.

Brian Burke is a guy that I ambivalent toward. He has done some really good things, but he has done some stuff that really made me shake my head. I hope he does great things for the Calgary Flames, but I am not going to forget all of the things that he's done in the past I didn't like, just because he is affiliated with the team I cheer for.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

LOL, trust me, Burke would happily employ Marchment as a hockey player. He's the exact type of guy he likes to have. It's the off-ice stuff Burke has a problem with, not the on-ice stuff. He even said as much.

Based on Burke's comments, I don't think Marchment would get a contract from Burke. One of the reasons Burke is in the 'pro fighting' circles is because of 'Rats' that go and cheap shot people. Can't remember his exact phrasing, but something like that.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Based on Burke's comments, I don't think Marchment would get a contract from Burke. One of the reasons Burke is in the 'pro fighting' circles is because of 'Rats' that go and cheap shot people. Can't remember his exact phrasing, but something like that.

C'mon. Burke drafted and signed Jarko Ruutu, one of the dirtiest players I've ever seen play in the NHL.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by New Era

Burke had an example where he could have done exactly what he said he would do with the Rice example, and he failed miserably. He circled the wagons as opposed to doing the right thing and making sure Bertuzzi never played hockey again.



Two willing combatants? GTFO. Bertuzzi absolutely mugged a defenseless player in an act of violence that had rarely been seen. It was very obvious that Moore wanted nothing to do with Bertuzzi, so save the bull#### of this being two willing combatants. On-ice or off-ice shouldn't matter. A gross act of violence should be dealt with accordingly regardless of where it took place.



And he obviously did, knowing he had done wrong, by offering Moore a contract with Anaheim, when he knew the player wouldn't play hockey again.



You're damn rights there is, and the Bertuzzi incident was one of the most violent incidents in NHL history. If that act had taken place anywhere but on the ice it would have led to criminal charges and Bertuzzi would have ended up in prison. That is the only context that matters. Burke, a lawyer, knew the context of the attack and still circled the wagons.



Yeah, thanks for the false dichotomy. This is not a black and white issue, but we have seen Burke's response to a major incident of violence, under his watch, and what the outcome was. Is it possible he could change his stripes? Sure. Do I think he would? No, because a decision of that magnitude is not just his call. You are talking about a multi-million dollar investment. I doubt he is going to do anything to cripple his enterprise when no criminal charges have been filed or upheld. Burke is going to do what is best for his hockey team, even if it is a little distasteful from time-to-time.

Brian Burke is a guy that I ambivalent toward. He has done some really good things, but he has done some stuff that really made me shake my head. I hope he does great things for the Calgary Flames, but I am not going to forget all of the things that he's done in the past I didn't like, just because he is affiliated with the team I cheer for.

You're not addressing my major point. None of what you said indicates he would condone a player abusing his wife or spouse. If you believe he would try and support a player who had done that you obviously consider him to be a POS who would put his team's success ahead of a person's personal safety, not to mention you consider him a liar for saying what he said about Ray Rice. I don't think that was a stretch to assume that point.

The bolded refers to on-ice incidents (really, one incident where he supported a player who did something awful in the context of the game), and while you may have an argument in that regard, I don't see how that applies at all to an off-ice incident where there is incontrovertible evidence.

I'll keep my points simple for you so you don't have to go off in giant essay form again.

Burke's response to poor character and discipline on the ice=Grey area.

Burke's response to poor character and discipline off the ice (in the community)=Black and White, Right and Wrong.

[Phanuthier]

Am I the only one that finds it slightly amusing that New Era can't tell the difference between NHL players vs women/children?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

Burke's response to poor character and discipline off the ice (in the community)=Black and White, Right and Wrong.

I don't believe that. I hope we never have to find out, but I seriously doubt Burke has the sack to release a star player for digressions away from the ice. If he really felt that strongly about off-ice behavior and violence, would Michael Ferland would be playing in the Calgary Flames organization?

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Am I the only one that finds it slightly amusing that New Era can't tell the difference between NHL players vs women/children?

Educate me. What is the difference? An act of violence is an act of violence.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't believe that. I hope we never have to find out, but I seriously doubt Burke has the sack to release a star player for digressions away from the ice. If he really felt that strongly about off-ice behavior and violence, would Michael Ferland would be playing in the Calgary Flames organization?



Educate me. What is the difference? An act of violence is an act of violence.

Michael Ferland was in a Bar Fight. Man vs. Man. Ferland responded after being attacked and the plaintiff said he played a role. This was not Ferland whipping a 4 year old with a weapon, nor did he punch out his fiancee and then not even check to see if she was ok.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by New Era

Educate me. What is the difference? An act of violence is an act of violence.

-Facewashing during a scrum vs murder. Meh violence is violence

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by New Era

Educate me. What is the difference? An act of violence is an act of violence.

I'm sorry. I don't think I can help you. Maybe someone else can.

[PugnaciousIntern]

I lean towards believing Burke on this one. If there's one thing he's known for, it's having strong opinions and sticking to them. Look at his track record. Even on trivial things - if the man forces players to change numbers low enough that Grade 1 kids can count to, I think he'll put his foot down on this. Whether you agree with his opinionated (and often wacky) moral sense, it's there. Looking at the LBGT community and the acceptance that he demands in the locker room is another example. He's just been fortunate to not have to deal with a player committing such a blatant and heinous crime in their personal life.

I do have to agree with many posters that we get into murky waters when teams make a quick judgement of players off-ice behaviour prior to a real legal conviction. However, this Ray Rice story is in a world of its own, as there was video evidence, and he described the events to the team that were consistent with the new elevator video, regardless of who saw it when. In this case, you don't need to wait for the conclusion of a legal case that may or may not even happen and could drag on for years, to dismiss a player in a career with an average 2-3 professional years duration.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't believe that. I hope we never have to find out, but I seriously doubt Burke has the sack to release a star player for digressions away from the ice. If he really felt that strongly about off-ice behavior and violence, would Michael Ferland would be playing in the Calgary Flames organization?



Educate me. What is the difference? An act of violence is an act of violence.

What would happen if you walked up to your girlfriend or son, in a store lets say, and crosschecked her to the ground with a piece of lumber? Would you have to sit by yourself for two minutes? Five minutes and banned from the store for a day? Or would you be arrested for assault with a weapon.

See any differences yet?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

-Facewashing during a scrum vs murder. Meh violence is violence

So a face wash is the same thing as the most egregious act of violence the NHL has seen in 30-40 years? Nice use of a false equivalency and taking a comment out of context. Phanuthier tried to imply that violence against women and children is more important than violence against men. I believe violence against anyone, regardless of sex or age, is equal. So does the law in most civilized nations.

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I'm sorry. I don't think I can help you. Maybe someone else can.

That's the best you can do? Take a cheapshot, get called out, then not back it up? Well done.

Just a simple question. If Burke felt so strongly about this issue where was he when Varlamov beat the crap out his girlfriend?

Originally Posted by Zevo

What would happen if you walked up to your girlfriend or son, in a store lets say, and crosschecked her to the ground with a piece of lumber? Would you have to sit by yourself for two minutes? Five minutes and banned from the store for a day? Or would you be arrested for assault with a weapon.

See any differences yet?

So there should be a difference because it happened in a hockey arena? Because that is what Brian Burke argued, as an executive of the Vancouver Canucks, when it happened in his arena. Does that click for you? Or does being a Flames fan, and Brian Burke being the president of the club, blind you to the facts and history of the events?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

55 posts before this thread was ruined. That's longer than I predicted at least.

[driveway]

The bertuzzi-Moore incident is egregious only because of the bad luck of moore's injury. The act in and of itself rates lower than some others I can think of, namely the McSorley-Brashear stick swinging incident and I'd say Emery going off on whichever poor goalie that was he went off on.

I believe that Burke-and all hockey GMs and presidents-would treat on-ice and off-ice behavior differently. I think off-ice violence would be way, way less tolerated.

And if you really want to see what a violent in-game incident looks like, head over to r/hockey and find the thread about the Everett Silvertips fight with the Seattle Thunderbirds fans. I've never seen anything like it, it makes Ron Artest look like Craig McTavish tearing out Harvey's tongue.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

If any member of the Flames did what Ray Rice did not only would I be ok with them getting cut, I would expect it. I don't care what player it is, if he's the best player on the team or a 4th line AHL call up, you cut him and don't look back.

I didn't want Bertuzzi on this team, I surely wouldn't any player that abuses women or children.

Bertuzzi should have done jail time for what he did to Moore 10 years ago. It was not an act of passion. It was premeditated, and gave a man permanent injuries. Five years in jail would ahve been adequate. I would have never welcomed back Bertuzzi, and it's too bad the Flames gave him a shot.

The way the NHL, NHLPA, players, and even Moore's teammates abandoned him, in favor of Bertuzzi was absolutely disgusting. If anyone here has the impression that the NHL is somehow morally superior to the NFL, they would be mistaken.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Totally different. I used to get spanked and whacked with a wooden spoon and I was better off for it. Some kids today could use a spanking.

Then you must be an exception to the rule:


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/spanking-children/

Kids today could sure use a spanking....if you want them to learn that settling issues with violence is the right thing to do. Just look at the violent crime/murder rate. It's at the lowest level since the early 70s, when there was no debate about corporate punishment. I believe they even practiced it in the public school system.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Bertuzzi should have done jail time for what he did to Moore 10 years ago. It was not an act of passion. It was premeditated, and gave a man permanent injuries. Five years in jail would ahve been adequate. I would have never welcomed back Bertuzzi, and it's too bad the Flames gave him a shot.

You can't be serious. 5 years for what Bertuzzi did? How was it premeditated beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt that Bertuzzi went onto the ice thinking he would break Moore's neck or even sucker punch him? He wanted to fight him. Moore refused and Bertuzzi lost his cool/mind.

It's like if it was legal to fight and you're really angry at a person because he beat up your friend recently and you wanted to take things outside. He refuses and you end up punching him. 5 years in jail for that because it was premeditated? I don't think so.