I think Aliu would have an uphill battle to prove significant damages for the reasons DM has provided above. However, I am not left with the impression that he is seeking a financial windfall for himself. Hiring a well known lawyer doesn't automatically mean he is looking for a payday. It seems like he really wants to improve the system.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
Well it wasn’t a sustained situation. He wasn’t stuck with that employer and situation, grinding him down. Got out of it pretty fast, actually. Then had 21 more employers in the next decade.
In 2 short years he got in with a stable quality organization, and made it to the NHL.
What constitutes a short year? Were they non-leap years?
There is a strong argument to be made that ages 18-24 are the most important in determining a hockey player's career trajectory, and earnings. I bet it wouldn't be too hard to whip up a statistical analysis that shows a significant difference in career earnings for 2nd & 3rd round picks who were sent to the ECHL vs. those who weren't. Aliu's team could cherry pick the data in whatever way makes their case the strongest (picks 50-60, only 2nd round picks, etc.), and they seem to have a pretty strong case that Aliu's demotion was not based on on-ice performance.
Pro sports are weird. A semi-free market within an enclosed environment. Relatively few brokers have immense power; if they are not acting in good-faith, it can be extremely detrimental for specific athletes (see Kaepernick, Colin). Bowman and the Blackhawks have a decent defence that they would not intentionally sabotage the value of their own asset,.
A lot of this comes down to reputation. You know how a lot of organizations have a policy of not providing info on past employees for reference checks? That policy came from somewhere.
The overall case is anything but a slam dunk, but IMO there is plenty of meat on the bone to play with. I'll just never understand the hand-wringing that happens when certain types of people explore their options for remedy. The security guard in the Auston Matthews situation comes to mind.
^ Jesus. In the relatively short period of 2 years. Was it really that unclear?
By virtue of the fact that the Flames gave him his shot, not once but twice, I feel this imaginary case of organizations acting in bad faith against the guy has little merit
Although, if you want to go full conspiracy wingnut with it, maybe the Flames by not sending him to the ECHL when he was in the org defied the conspirators and now, fast forward, the officials have banded together to let them know it will not stand. Those 8 short handed situations didn’t come from nowhere
^ Jesus. In the relatively short period of 2 years. Was it really that unclear?
By virtue of the fact that the Flames gave him his shot, not once but twice, I feel this imaginary case of organizations acting in bad faith against the guy has little merit
Although, if you want to go full conspiracy wingnut with it, maybe the Flames by not sending him to the ECHL when he was in the org defied the conspirators and now, fast forward, the officials have banded together to let them know it will not stand. Those 8 short handed situations didn’t come from nowhere
My goodness, I think you are on to something
I don't think the Flames have anything to do with it. His argument will be that the interactions with Peters and the Hawks, limited as they were, caused, or partly caused a chain of events that blew up his career. By the time he got to Calgary the damage was done in other words.
Well it wasn’t a sustained situation. He wasn’t stuck with that employer and situation, grinding him down. Got out of it pretty fast, actually. Then had 21 more employers in the next decade.
In 2 short years he got in with a stable quality organization, and made it to the NHL.
Do you really think he was frustrated when he played with the Flames and got his first NHL goal?
That’s a lot of positive within the first two years of his career being derailed
His interactions with Peters were probably just a symptom of a more pervasive issue. While others may not have been slinging the n-word around openly, if Peters can do that and get away with it, it's not beyond possibility that others in the NHL were more subtle about their racism.
It would be difficult if not impossible to prove, but Aliu's feelings are justified IMO.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I don't think the Flames have anything to do with it. His argument will be that the interactions with Peters and the Hawks, limited as they were, caused, or partly caused a chain of events that blew up his career. By the time he got to Calgary the damage was done in other words.
It's the causation and the quantification of the damages that would make it difficult for him though. Just spitballing numbers here, but if a guy in his position (good, but not great prospect, playing in the AHL) has a 20% chance of an average career (which I am again guessing, might be shorter and less lucrative that you might think), and this interaction lowered that chance, I think the damages would be that difference in percentages times the average earnings. I don't think it is life changing money. He would need to seek punitive or exemplary damages, which is possible, but by no means a certainty.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
I don’t really care too much at all what he does.
And nobody disagrees that Peters did wrong things.
But he did hire a second lawyer in the US, and some people reasonably wonder what his plans are.
Does he plan to sue any of the leagues or organizations?
If so, on what grounds?
What would you reasonably expect he could make a case for?
Being that this is a discussion board, it seems like, you know, something to discuss.
Would a lawsuit have merit?
Do you feel like there is a reason not to discuss it?
People should discus whatever they want. I do feel like it is a very minor point compared to the broader issue that has surfaced here, and so I do think it's a shame that so much time and energy is being diverted away from more meaningful discussions.
Do you think some people want to question Aliu's motives in an attempt to minimize the seriousness of what Peters did?
It's the causation and the quantification of the damages that would make it difficult for him though. Just spitballing numbers here, but if a guy in his position (good, but not great prospect, playing in the AHL) has a 20% chance of an average career (which I am again guessing, might be shorter and less lucrative that you might think), and this interaction lowered that chance, I think the damages would be that difference in percentages times the average earnings. I don't think it is life changing money. He would need to seek punitive or exemplary damages, which is possible, but by no means a certainty.
I think his biggest problem is limitations, followed by causation and quantification. The latter - he will just present expert evidence and hope for a percentage. This can put a defendant in a bit of an awkward position of arguing "you were always going to be a crappy player", which sometimes doesn't play well.
I'm not even convinced he's going to sue, as opposed to having lawyers to work out a deal where he participates in an NHL awareness and education program.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
I just look at it and see he spent 13 games in the ECHL after 48 in the AHL
Then the next season he was in a new organization, spent 59 games in the AHL on two different AHL teams and 16 in the ECHL.
He is generally around a point per game in the ECHL, so likely ready for the AHL. In the AHL, many stops, he is in the .2-.3 point per game range. Why wouldn’t a guy with that limited output be a candidate for the ECHL? Seems reasonable
Four more ECHL teams in the mix between 2014-15 and last year.
Let’s put it this way
If I had to choose between two narratives:
a) he is a fringe player that showed flashes of promise, had stints with 7 clubs in the ECHL over ~10 years, was ok in the AHL but bounced around and got a couple of sniffs with the Flames.
b) the demotion by Peters (who has not had any public say as to why he was demoted) and that 13 game stint somehow set the tone for the 21 (!) subsequent teams that he bounced between in the following decade.
I personally do not like what Peters did but have trouble choosing narrative b) over narrative a)
And I get it, US juries can give crazy awards and why not go for it, if that’s what he does. But I just don’t see anything from the player that suggests he was a sure fire NHLer, which is really the only level where you make could make the amount of money worth suing for
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
^ I am curious what Aliu’s case would be. How “derailed” was his career? He was in the NHL 2 years after the Peters incident and was never a 100 percent sure thing.
He was recognized on that NHL central scouting form as having very good to excellent skills in certain areas with average marks for work ethic and discipline. High marks on skills and low marks in competitiveness and defensive play.
Some highlights:
Player type: power forward
Pro potential: 6 - Good chance to play in NHL. Needs time to develop
Pro ranking - potential role should he make the NHL: 8. 1st line / top 2 D
Deserves consideration as one of the best prospects in these areas: Fighting, shot
Skating was generally ranked as very good.
Same with puck skills
Work ethic average, consistency poor
Average marks for back checking and defensive reliability.
I think that the NHL has changed a bit between then and now. More emphasis on speed and less on fighting. To me, the issues of consistency and work ethic have a lot to do with bubble players sticking.
Aliu did make the NHL, he showed flashes, and was given a fair shot in Calgary. He has bounced around afterwards, and a few times since then has played for 3 teams in one year.
Different people have different paths to the NHL. Some draftees don’t make it but he did. He was a feel good story when he made it, but he didn’t stick.
Being 30 now, he was, what, 22 or 23 when he made it? That is on track time wise for a lot of kids who get their first look.
He got into his first NHL games with Calgary 2 seasons after the Peters incident, as far as I can tell.
I know that there is a significant jump in earning potential between minor leagues to NHL, where the minimum wage of 695 K at the time (or whatever) is life changing.
Lawsuits in Canada as far as I understand generally involve damages that can be demonstrated.
I probably have no idea what they are based on in the US.
I guess my question is if he is suing anyone, be it an organization or a league, how he intends to demonstrate on the balance of probability that someone stopped him from making x dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Top D goal scorer? He was a winger with them as far as I am aware. Perhaps hockeydb inherited his player profile position in its table?
Again, he was in the NHL 2 years later.
Aliu’s 18 points in 48 pro rate to ~28 over 80.
Kyle Greentree was on the team as well. He got 45 points in 64 games.
He got all of 4 games in the NHL. 2 with Philly, 2 with the Flames
Brian Connelly and Peter McArthur had better scoring and never saw the NHL
Nobody is saying Peters is in the right. But this is a guy who 6 times over a 7 year span suited up for three teams in a season.
Again, the Flames gave Aliu two years of reasonable stability, and he was in the NHL twice with them, right in his early twenties. He had a chance, lived his dream of playing in the NHL, didn’t stick and then carried on with the pattern of 3 teams per season more often than not.
About belonging in the ECHL, well, he was sent down the following year as well. Did he not belong there again, in your opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
When people talk about mental gymnastics, this is an example.
I think the 10 years body of work tells a consistent story, which is the most likely one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
I am not sure what you are arguing. I didn’t make the assumption you assert, but I certainly point to his record as data to be considered as evidential of his ceiling.
My basic musing way back was if he were to make a case that his career was derailed, how he could actually make that case. Throw all of the experts at it that you like, the best you can do is say *maybe* things could have turned out better, but you still can’t outline with a reasonable degree of probability at all what the different outcome would have been, what magical ceiling he might have had beyond what he accomplished.
So yes, imagining a substantially different outcome I believe does take mental gymnastics.
If he was demoted and never got a sniff of the AHL again, that’s one thing, but he caught on with another organization and was in the NHL just 2 years later. He had a chance very early in his career.
Consistency, work ethic and discipline were identified by central scouting as concerns.
As mentioned, I wondered how he could make a case, on the balance of probability, as to what quantifiable damages he sustained, and nothing I have seen establishes that.
Like you say, he may not be pursuing a lawsuit, and I do hope that his angle is to be a change agent to some extent, for the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Hadn’t crossed my mind
Would you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Well it wasn’t a sustained situation. He wasn’t stuck with that employer and situation, grinding him down. Got out of it pretty fast, actually. Then had 21 more employers in the next decade.
In 2 short years he got in with a stable quality organization, and made it to the NHL.
Do you really think he was frustrated when he played with the Flames and got his first NHL goal?
That’s a lot of positive within the first two years of his career being derailed
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
^ Jesus. In the relatively short period of 2 years. Was it really that unclear?
By virtue of the fact that the Flames gave him his shot, not once but twice, I feel this imaginary case of organizations acting in bad faith against the guy has little merit
Although, if you want to go full conspiracy wingnut with it, maybe the Flames by not sending him to the ECHL when he was in the org defied the conspirators and now, fast forward, the officials have banded together to let them know it will not stand. Those 8 short handed situations didn’t come from nowhere
My goodness, I think you are on to something
I mean...that seems like quite a few long posts including lots of statistical research for any topic, let alone one you don't really care about...
To the last of those posts about the "relatively short period of 2 years" - I certainly understood what you meant, but I'm pointing out that 2 years is a neither short nor insignificant time period for an aspiring professional hockey player, especially before you reach your mid 20s.
Quote:
But he did hire a second lawyer in the US, and some people reasonably wonder what his plans are.
Does he plan to sue any of the leagues or organizations?
If so, on what grounds?
What would you reasonably expect he could make a case for?
Being that this is a discussion board, it seems like, you know, something to discuss.
Would a lawsuit have merit?
Do you feel like there is a reason not to discuss it?
These are the discussions most of us are having. You seem to be the only one working pro-bono to refute a theoretical lawsuit...
I'm not one to discourage any kind of discussion. By all means, continue as you are. Just a heads up, IMO you seem to be passionately pontificating about a topic you claim to not care that much about. Sometimes we all need to push back from the keyboard and ask ourselves wtf am I doing here?
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
1. We don’t like surprises – the Bill Peters situation was a complete surprise.
Going forward, our clubs are on notice that if they become aware of an incident of conduct involving NHL personnel on or off the ice that is clearly inappropriate, unlawful or demonstrably abusive, or that may violate the League’s policies, involving NHL Club personnel, on or off the ice, we at the League office – Bill Daly or me – must be immediately advised. There will be zero tolerance for any failure to notify us and in the event of such failure, the club and individuals involved can expect severe discipline.
As it relates to incidents involving Bill Peters in Carolina – there seems to be some confusion between statements by Peter Karmanos and Ron Francis, which I still need to sort out. However, I am fairly clear that none of this has anything to do with Carolina under Tom Dundon, who was among the first to call me when Peters’ conduct came to light and he first learned about the Peters physical abuse allegations in Carolina.
Quote:
Calgary’s response initially to Akim Aliu’s allegations and then the Carolina issue, was timely, professional and appropriate. While none of Bill Peters’ inappropriate conduct occurred on the Flames’ watch, they undertook the important effort to try to understand what happened 10 years ago and thereafter. Once Calgary could satisfy itself as to what transpired, they achieved an appropriate result and I commend the Calgary organization and in particular, Brad Treliving, for their efforts and cooperation. I think it is pretty fair to say that from now on when a Club is hiring a coach, the due diligence a team conducts will go to levels never seen before. And, that is a good thing.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
As it relates to incidents involving Bill Peters in Carolina – there seems to be some confusion between statements by Peter Karmanos and Ron Francis, which I still need to sort out. However, I am fairly clear that none of this has anything to do with Carolina under Tom Dundon, who was among the first to call me when Peters’ conduct came to light and he first learned about the Peters physical abuse allegations in Carolina.
What does this mean? It sure sounds like Dundon reported abusive behaviour by Peters to the League while he was still in Carolina.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
“They achieved an appropriate result”. Some carefully worded language right there.
Behind the curtains settlement for a resignation?
A lot of folks have been hyper critical of that. Some believe it's a sweeping it under the rug. I dont think it is as it's a bit of a opening of a can of worms if you drop the guillotine without thought.
“They achieved an appropriate result”. Some carefully worded language right there.
Behind the curtains settlement for a resignation?
A lot of folks have been hyper critical of that. Some believe it's a sweeping it under the rug. I dont think it is as it's a bit of a opening of a can of worms if you drop the guillotine without thought.
“They achieved an appropriate result”. Some carefully worded language right there.
The contract likely didn't have broad enough language to make this a fireable offence. Thus the 'appropriate result'. No messy lawsuit and everyone can move on.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
