Friedman Red Wings Sign Patrick Kane to 1-year/$2.75m Deal

[BrooksBurner]

13 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Well, im not sure why I need to justify where and when i respond. As for the comment about the guy running the site. i was mistaken about that. I thought it was Phil that made the comment. Guess it was actually Brooks wh is another long time user. My apologizes. Point really is the same but whatever. As i said, hindsight is an amazing tool. Have fun with your incredibly fun crusade on pointing out every wrong post.  

 

   It just seems like an extremely petty thing to do bordering on trolling but you just keep being you. Hindsight is an amazing tool. Most, including yourself didn't want him here. I hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas. 

 

 

I’m basically a site owner since I own Pete on a frequent basis

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Well, im not sure why I need to justify where and when i respond. As for the comment about the guy running the site. i was mistaken about that. I thought it was Phil that made the comment. Guess it was actually Brooks wh is another long time user. My apologizes. Point really is the same but whatever. As i said, hindsight is an amazing tool. Have fun with your incredibly fun crusade on pointing out every wrong post.  

 

   It just seems like an extremely petty thing to do bordering on trolling but you just keep being you. Hindsight is an amazing tool. Most, including yourself didn't want him here. I hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas. 

 

 

This is no different from what you do.

 

And frankly you're a mod, so your job is to talk about the point of the thread and not to talk about me. If you can't handle that then just ignore my posts. 

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I’m basically a site owner since I own Pete on a frequent basis

You're the owner of hot takes and shitty opinions and that's about it. 

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're the owner of hot takes and shitty opinions and that's about it. 

[Keirik]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

This is no different from what you do.

 

And frankly you're a mod, so your job is to talk about the point of the thread and not to talk about me. If you can't handle that then just ignore my posts. 

I am discussing your posts. They are bordering on trolling. I would love to be able to not moderate or try to reel you in but alas, on Christmas eve, you're thoughts are on " who can I call out for being wrong a week ago" while ignoring your own posts on the same matter. It is what it is dude. I'll moderatr as I feel fit but I appreciate the suggestions. I always look to improve my role here. 

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I am discussing your posts. They are bordering on trolling. I would love to be able to not moderate or try to reel you in but alas, on Christmas eve, you're thoughts are on " who can I call out for being wrong a week ago" while ignoring your own posts on the same matter. It is what it is dude. I'll moderatr as I feel fit but I appreciate the suggestions. I always look to improve my role here. 

I'm not ignoring my own posts. I never said he stinks. Someone else did. I posted a rebuttal. This happens here everyday. You don't need to reel anyone in. You decided to jump into a discussion that had nothing to do with you, you posted something out of turn, and you got corrected. I don't know why you just can't let it go. You literally said "nobody here said he stinks" and I literally showed you the post where somebody did say verbatim that he stink. I don't know why it's beyond you to say "oh, my bad, I guess someone here did say he stinks." 

 

You keep coming back to what I'm doing on Christmas Eve, but it's really none of your business and I don't understand why my posting schedule is a point of discussion.

 

You're looking for an argument, I'm sorry you're having a bad day. Move on. 

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Pete

[Keirik]

Just now, Pete said:

I'm not ignoring my own posts. I never said he stinks. Someone else did. I posted a rebuttal. This happens here everyday.

 

You keep coming back to what I'm doing on Christmas Eve, but it's really none of your business and I don't understand why my posting schedule is a point of discussion.

 

You're looking for an argument, I'm sorry you're having a bad day. Move on. 

I'm actually having a great day but thank you again for the well wishes. 

 

 I'm looking less for an argument and looking more for productive conversations. Everyone gives hot takes here and there including yourself.  I'm not sure every one needs to be called out, even specifically on holidays lol. Thats the point. When you do that, it becomes clear (to me at least) that you're more interested in gotcha moments and less interested in hockey discussions.  Thats a shame if we are about that here. 

 

  Again, you didn't want Kane here. I didn't either. Very few did. So far, we are proven wrong. It's a long season still though. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Keirik said:

I'm actually having a great day but thank you again for the well wishes. 

 

 I'm looking less for an argument and looking more for productive conversations. Everyone gives hot takes here and there including yourself.  I'm not sure every one needs to be called out, even specifically on holidays lol. Thats the point. When you do that, it becomes clear (to me at least) that you're more interested in gotcha moments and less interested in hockey discussions.  Thats a shame if we are about that here. 

 

  Again, you didn't want Kane here. I didn't either. Very few did. So far, we are proven wrong. It's a long season still though. 

"I'm looking for a productive conversation, therefore I'll make personal comments about you." 

 

Guess I didn't realize we're not allowed to post on Christmas Eve without a specific motive that you're dictating. 

 

I'll be more careful in the future, or you can just go harass someone else. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Pete

[Keirik]

59 minutes ago, Pete said:

"I'm looking for a productive conversation, therefore I'll make personal comments about you." 

 

Guess I didn't realize we're not allowed to post on Christmas Eve without a specific motive that you're dictating. 

 

I'll be more careful in the future, or you can just go harass someone else. 

I appreciate it for sure. And if I've said anything that you've taken personally, then I do apologize. That's not my intention. 

 

  I value you as a poster and member of this community. No one likes hearing from moderators. I get that. I just think there is a time and place for everything, and it seemed a bit off from my perspective. If however, anything you felt was over the line from me,I not only apologize, but hope our fellow members will let me know so I can correct any poor behavior.

 

 

LGR! 

[Phil]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

There were a lot of people, yourself included, who were ignoring the reasons why nobody ever made it back. That information has been pretty clearly laid out.

 

There were plenty of reasons to have an open mind about it and a lot of people's minds were closed based on narrow information. 

 

Not at all. All other players had major issues in addition to the hip surgery. That undoubtedly played a factor in their careers ending early, but there was no evidence at all, including in other sports, of athletes undergoing this and returning to form. The only two who I can even think of outside Kane are the Undertaker and Big Show from wrestling, both of whom went on to wrestle like once a year, and performed so badly that fans were begging them to retire.

 

I read the article you posted with quotes from the doctor about how Kane is a freak and ahead of schedule. That's not evidence. It's still hope. I'm glad he's doing well, but the history of players' careers ending often as a direct result of this surgery is long. I think it was entirely appropriate to have major reservations about signing this player.

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Not at all. All other players had major issues in addition to the hip surgery. That undoubtedly played a factor in their careers ending early, but there was no evidence at all, including in other sports, of athletes undergoing this and returning to form. The only two who I can even think of outside Kane are the Undertaker and Big Show from wrestling, both of whom went on to wrestle like once a year, and performed so badly that fans were begging them to retire.

 

I read the article you posted with quotes from the doctor about how Kane is a freak and ahead of schedule. That's not evidence. It's still hope. I'm glad he's doing well, but the history of players' careers ending often as a direct result of this surgery is long. I think it was entirely appropriate to have major reservations about signing this player.

At this point we're just talking past each other.

 

Him being so far ahead of schedule actually is evidence that he is one of the stronger players returning from this type of injury.

 

The history of players who haven't been able to come back from this is about five guys long. One of them was 39 I was bought out because of his contract not because he was physically unable to play, one of them had one eye, one of them had bilateral work done, and the last one was Backstrom.

 

I think when we sit there and say "nobody,ever, has returned from this" knowing that the "nobody" is about four people (3 of them with other issues)... is a little disingenuous. 

[Phil]

35 minutes ago, Pete said:

At this point we're just talking past each other.

 

Him being so far ahead of schedule actually is evidence that he is one of the stronger players returning from this type of injury.

 

The history of players who haven't been able to come back from this is about five guys long. One of them was 39 I was bought out because of his contract not because he was physically unable to play, one of them had one eye, one of them had bilateral work done, and the last one was Backstrom.

 

I think when we sit there and say "nobody,ever, has returned from this" knowing that the "nobody" is about four people (3 of them with other issues)... is a little disingenuous. 

 

It's evidence he was ahead of recovery schedule, not a guarantee that he would miraculously be the first player to salvage his career after a major surgery that ended every other players career who had it (to varying degrees).

 

The list is about five in the NHL. It's also much longer if you consider other hip replacement surgery types, but this specific type affected others in other sports. Andy Murray, Tiago Splitter, David Jones, The Undertaker (Mark Callaway), Big Show (Paul Wight), Isaiah Thomas, etc.

 

To me, this boils down to more of an argument of faith than evidence. There were no other players to athletically survive this, so I had little faith that Kane would buck that trend. You had more than me based on a report from his doctor that indicated he was ahead of schedule. That's really the crux if it, no?

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

It's evidence he was ahead of recovery schedule, not a guarantee that he would miraculously be the first player to salvage his career after a major surgery that ended every other players career who had it (to varying degrees).

Why are we now moving the goal posts from "evidence" to "guarantee"? And I guess my point is that maybe it's just miraculous to you because you didn't acknowledge any of the evidence... You just kept shrugging it off and saying "nobody ever!"...

 

Yzerman made a decision-based on the specific information he had about the player and not "nobody ever!", so he's being rewarded accordingly right now. 

 

Quote

The list is about five in the NHL. It's also much longer if you consider other hip replacement surgery types, but this specific type affected others in other sports. Andy Murray, Tiago Splitter, David Jones, The Undertaker (Mark Callaway), Big Show (Paul Wight), Isaiah Thomas, etc.

Andy Murray actually came back to play. 

 

Quote

To me, this boils down to more of an argument of faith than evidence. There were no other players to athletically survive this, so I had little faith that Kane would buck that trend. You had more than me based on a report from his doctor that indicated he was ahead of schedule. That's really the crux if it, no?

You're nitpicking.

 

Simply put, there were two camps. One camp said that this surgery was never done to a player this young who was coming off over a point per game season just a little more than a year ago. And even if he came back and wasn't a top line player, he's still much better than most players in the NHL even if he doesn't make it back 100% of what he was pre-surgery. And then there was some supporting information presented that said he's got a really good chance of being effective in a return... 

 

The other camp said there's no way he will ever come back and be effective, no matter what information was presented saying otherwise.

 

He looks to be able to contribute so far, and he's probably playing more than he should be. 

 

Maybe that second camp should have just kept an open mind instead of digging their heels in?

 

You can keep ringing that "nobody ever!" bell, turn off but the fact is that when that "nobody ever" is only four NHLers and three of them had other injuries, it's a really silly sword to fall on, but by all means continue to fall on it. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Pete

[Phil]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Why are we now moving the goal posts from "evidence" to "guarantee"? And I guess my point is that maybe it's just miraculous to you because you didn't acknowledge any of the evidence... You just kept shrugging it off and saying "nobody ever!"...

 

Yzerman made a decision-based on the specific information he had about the player and not "nobody ever!", so he's being rewarded accordingly right now.

 

I'm not moving any goalposts. I'll happily stick to "evidence" if it makes the argument easier to have. But again, what you are calling evidence doesn't qualify for me. The doctor's public assessment noted that Kane was ahead of his recovery schedule. That's evidence that he could return to play earlier than expected. Nothing more. It certainly doesn't relate to predictions of dominance or returns to form or anything like that — not for me.

 

Also, when I say miraculous, I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but only to illustrate a point: that almost no athlete, and no athlete in hockey, has come back from this and survived (athletically) for very long. If Kane bucks this trend, awesome. Both because I like the player (even though I didn't want him back) and because it can potentially reward future players who have to undergo this surgery with longer careers.

 

Quote

Andy Murray actually came back to play.

 

I know. And well, from what I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong there, because I don't follow outside sports. The list of names was only provided to show that it's longer than four or five once you account for other sports, and I'm sure I missed others that I'm just not aware of.

 

Quote

You're nitpicking.

 

Simply put, there were two camps. One camp said that this surgery was never done to a player this young who was coming off over a point per game season just a little more than a year ago. And even if he came back and wasn't a top line player, he's still much better than most players in the NHL even if he doesn't make it back 100% of what he was pre-surgery. And then there was some supporting information presented that said he's got a really good chance of being effective in a return... 

 

The other camp said there's no way he will ever come back and be effective, no matter what information was presented saying otherwise.

 

He looks to be able to contribute so far, and he's probably playing more than he should be. 

 

Maybe that second camp should have just kept an open mind instead of digging their heels in?

 

You can keep ringing that "nobody ever!" bell, turn off but the fact is that when that "nobody ever" is only four NHLers and three of them had other injuries, it's a really silly sword to fall on, but by all means continue to fall on it. 

 

Nope. Third camp: mine. This surgery was never performed on a [hockey] player of any stripe, in any condition, who didn't lose his career to it.  That's it. Full stop. I never made any declarations after other than that I had major reservations about signing him based on this information and that no new information I'd seen did much to alleviate those concerns.

 

Also, I'm not falling on any sword. I took a pragmatic approach to the player based on the information I actually had.

 

1. The short history of players who went through the same surgery—albeit players with other health-related issues—had their careers cut short by it.

 

2. The Rangers had no cap room to sign the player anyway.

 

That's it. That's the entirety of my "position."

[The Dude]

[Pete]

On 12/27/2023 at 6:54 PM, Phil said:

This surgery was never performed on a [hockey] player of any stripe, in any condition, who didn't lose his career to it.  That's it. Full stop.

But this isn't correct. Jovo got old. Hagelin lost an eye. Kesler had bilateral procedures. 

 

It's pretty much just Backstrom who had no other issues and still couldn't come back... And he might still try and come back, but he likely came back too soon. 

[Scott]

Left the game with a lower body injury and will not return in the first period. First one into the boards looked like an awkward hit. Then the trip finished him off for the night where he went down awkwardly as well.

 

 

Edited January 15 by jsrangers

[jsm7302]

2 hours ago, jsrangers said:

Left the game with a lower body injury and will not return in the first period. First one into the boards looked like an awkward hit. Then the trip finished him off for the night where he went down awkwardly as well.

 

 

Damn shame. Hope it's not hip related obviously not a long term injury. 88 NYR redemption tour starts in 1 month.