Around the NHL

[MrBoJangelz71]

"True remorse is showing remorse at a level Miller is not capable of" sounds a lot like what I'm saying he's up against: no matter what he does, it will seem inadequate.

YES if what he does is continue to bully and hurl racial slurs at a mentally challenged black kid.

You get that right?

If you continue to do the thing you were charged for, after paying your price, that YOU ARE NOT REFORMED?

If a criminal rapes someone and goes to jail for 5 years, gets out and repeats the same action again, they are not reformed.

According to the courts, the apology was done, as it was part of his sentence, and obviously his sentence could not have been completed if the courts did not receive it. Whether or not there was a mistake on the court's part in delivering it, that may be an issue altogether. But what we know right now is A. Miller was required to issue an apology to complete the terms of his conviction and B. he is on record as having completed the terms of his conviction.

And according to the victims mother, the other person charged apologized immediately, he showed instant remorse for his disgusting actions. Mitchell, according to the mother, did not show any remorse and did not state any remorse till the courts forced him too.

Now, one could say that apology was sincere, even if it came from a court order, but in Mitchells' case, after the apology he continued to racially bully a mentally challenged person.

If you are remorseful, if you learnt what you did is not acceptable, you stop it. That was not the case. He continued to bully and pick on a person that could not defend themselves from it.

It's as disgusting an action as one can commit. He did it repeatedly, he continued to do it after he was charged, and now, today, because it is in the national media, he is stating how truly remorseful he is, not to the family, not to his victim, but to the NHL, and national media.

I never said he suffered severely. I said he paid a legal price, namely a conviction and terms to complete; and if your goal is to suggest that Miller's punishment has not fit the crime, then why are you defending another punishment that, also, does not fit the crime?

I am 100% saying it did not fit the crime, because if it did fit the crime, Mitchell would have instantly stopped the horrible things he was doing to the exact same victim. 25 hours of picking up garbage around your community centre does not equate to being forced to eat a candy that someone urinated on. It does not cover the 100s of hours Mitchell tormented a challenged black kid that had enough hills to battle in life that he didn't need another one cause by some little snot nose racist Dbag that picked and bullied him for years.

He did horrific disgusting things to a poor victim and showed no remorse for it, because he continued it.


And we can talk all we want about reform. At 14 years old, I had enough empathy and understanding that picking on a challenged person is WRONG. To do it once would be awful, and one with a decent moral compass would have huge regrets.

To not have any regrets, to continue to get up everyday and make it a choice to go out of your way to make a challenged person's day as difficult and unbearable as you possibly can, you have something broken deep down in you that 25 hours of picking up trash will not dissolve.

 

[Jets 31]

YES if what he does is continue to bully and hurl racial slurs at a mentally challenged black kid.

You get that right?

If you continue to do the thing you were charged for, after paying your price, that YOU ARE NOT REFORMED?

If a criminal rapes someone and goes to jail for 5 years, gets out and repeats the same action again, they are not reformed.

Would your take be, hey, they paid the price and they deserve to rape again? That seems to be your take with Miller.



And according to the victims mother, the other person charged apologized immediately, he showed instant remorse for his disgusting actions. Mitchell, according to the mother, did not show any remorse and did not state any remorse till the courts forced him too.

Now, one could say that apology was sincere, even if it came from a court order, but in Mitchells' case, after the apology he continued to racially bully a mentally challenged person.

If you are remorseful, if you learnt what you did is not acceptable, you stop it. That was not the case. He continued to bully and pick on a person that could not defend themselves from it.

It's as disgusting an action as one can commit. He did it repeatedly, he continued to do it after he was charged, and now, today, because it is in the national media, he is stating how truly remorseful he is, not to the family, not to his victim, but to the NHL, and national media.



I am 100% saying it did not fit the crime, because if it did fit the crime, Mitchell would have instantly stopped the horrible things he was doing to the exact same victim. 25 hours of picking up garbage around your community centre does not equate to being forced to eat a candy that someone urinated on. It does not cover the 100s of hours Mitchell tormented a challenged black kid that had enough hills to battle in life that he didn't need another one cause by some little snot nose racist Dbag that picked and bullied him for years.

So spare me once again with poor little Mitchell being victimized by a cancel society. That is not the case here. He did horrific disgusting things to a poor victim and showed no remorse for it, because he continued it.

The only thing acting like a cancel society is your take on this. Hey he did 25 hours of community service, that should cancel out that he is a disgusting human being that continued to do the same things after.

And we can talk all we want about reform. At 14 years old, I had enough empathy and understanding that picking on a challenged person is WRONG. To do it once would be awful, and one with a decent moral compass would have huge regrets.

To not have any regrets, to continue to get up everyday and make it a choice to go out of your way to make a challenged person's day as difficult and unbearable as you possibly can, you have something broken deep down in you that 25 hours of picking up trash will not dissolve.

Also what he did to that poor kid has definitely scared the kid for life. Someone doing this to a challenged person should have all the exact same things done to them then they might understand what they did, same goes for animal cruelty people.

 

[AlphaLackey]

YES if what he does is continue to bully and hurl racial slurs at a mentally challenged black kid.

You get that right?

If you continue to do the thing you were charged for, after paying your price, that YOU ARE NOT REFORMED?

If a criminal rapes someone and goes to jail for 5 years, gets out and repeats the same action again, they are not reformed.




And according to the victims mother, the other person charged apologized immediately, he showed instant remorse for his disgusting actions. Mitchell, according to the mother, did not show any remorse and did not state any remorse till the courts forced him too.

Now, one could say that apology was sincere, even if it came from a court order, but in Mitchells' case, after the apology he continued to racially bully a mentally challenged person.

If you are remorseful, if you learnt what you did is not acceptable, you stop it. That was not the case. He continued to bully and pick on a person that could not defend themselves from it.

It's as disgusting an action as one can commit. He did it repeatedly, he continued to do it after he was charged, and now, today, because it is in the national media, he is stating how truly remorseful he is, not to the family, not to his victim, but to the NHL, and national media.



I am 100% saying it did not fit the crime, because if it did fit the crime, Mitchell would have instantly stopped the horrible things he was doing to the exact same victim. 25 hours of picking up garbage around your community centre does not equate to being forced to eat a candy that someone urinated on. It does not cover the 100s of hours Mitchell tormented a challenged black kid that had enough hills to battle in life that he didn't need another one cause by some little snot nose racist Dbag that picked and bullied him for years.

He did horrific disgusting things to a poor victim and showed no remorse for it, because he continued it.

Hey he did 25 hours of community service, that should cancel out that he is a disgusting human being that continued to do the same things after.

And we can talk all we want about reform. At 14 years old, I had enough empathy and understanding that picking on a challenged person is WRONG. To do it once would be awful, and one with a decent moral compass would have huge regrets.

To not have any regrets, to continue to get up everyday and make it a choice to go out of your way to make a challenged person's day as difficult and unbearable as you possibly can, you have something broken deep down in you that 25 hours of picking up trash will not dissolve.

In particular, let me point this out: just because your desire for further punishment for Mitchell is clearly driven by emotional disgust for his actions (which as I said before is perfectly understandable), that doesn't therefore mean that any opposition to blacklisting him for life must also be driven from an emotional position, in this case from a position of "pity" or "emotional support" for Mitchell.

Similarly, I can have zero sympathy for a child molestor, and still argue that capital punishment for child molestation is either too far on general principles (anti-capital punishment) or logistic ones (the unintended yet obviously predictable consequences for having capital punishment for any crime that doesn't involve ending a life). Of course, anyone who has spent five minutes on the internet knows how futile that would be to articulate that, for the reasons I touched on.

So let me be clear: suffice it to say I'm not going to psychicially herniate myself in an effort to muster sympathy for him. But that doesn't mean that I can't think that it's possible to go beyond what is just in the name of punishing a bad person for bad acts.

I stand by what I said; "you must be blacklisted for life based on what you did at 14" is a punishment that does not fit the crime, as so often are the punishments called for by vigilante mobs. And if you are basing your objection to the Coyotes drafting him on "his punishment did not fit the crime", my response is obvious: why are you then calling for a different punishment that also does not fit the crime?

The obvious answer on your end (please pardon me if I mischaracterized you here) is that you feel that a lifetime blacklisting *is* an appropriate punishment for what he did at 14.

And that's just where we're stuck diverging.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Also what he did to that poor kid has definitely scared the kid for life. Someone doing this to a challenged person should have all the exact same things done to them then they might understand what they did, same goes for animal cruelty people.

See, now, I could have sworn that in the NFL, a player received a second chance for some felony level animal cruelty shit that he committed at 28, whose return to play is seen as an uplifting story and a testament to the power of second chances.

 

[Jets 31]

See, now, I could have sworn that in the NFL, a player received a second chance for some felony level animal cruelty shit that he committed at 28, whose return to play is seen as an uplifting story and a testament to the power of second chances.

If he was a borderline talent and not a QB i don't know if he would have. I just think there is something really wrong mentally with someone who can hurt defenseless people or animals .

 

[AlphaLackey]

If he was a borderline talent and not a QB i don't know if he would have. I just think there is something really wrong mentally with someone who can hurt defenseless people or animals .

I mean, I'm not gonna disagree with you about how wrong and depraved such acts are. And you may well be right, Vick's standing in the NFL may well be part of what got him his shot at redemption. I say this because, in the Mitchell case, many people (bizarrely, to me) have gone out of their way to knowingly and falsely imply that Mitchell was some elite-level talent, using expressions like "the Coyotes' top draft pick". Like there's some association trying to be made here that I can't quite put my finger on.

 

[Jets 31]

I mean, I'm not gonna disagree with you about how wrong and depraved such acts are. And you may well be right, Vick's standing in the NFL may well be part of what got him his shot at redemption. I say this because, in the Mitchell case, many people (bizarrely, to me) have gone out of their way to knowingly and falsely imply that Mitchell was some elite-level talent, using expressions like "the Coyotes' top draft pick". Like there's some association trying to be made here that I can't quite put my finger on.

Ya a 4th round pick isn't great talent but he could average 1 million a year to play a game, that's a pretty good living for being a dirtbag . You have a point to your argument but i just can't cheer for someone like this but that's just me.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Ya a 4th round pick isn't great talent but he could average 1 million a year to play a game, that's a pretty good living for being a dirtbag . You have a point to your argument but i just can't cheer for someone like this but that's just me.

Oh, I ain't cheering for him, don't worry. Like that video of Richard Spencer getting cold cocked, it's like "well, I think it's accurate to say that instigatory violence is wrong, even against an asshole like that. I better watch it again to make sure. Nope, still not sure, better watch it again." Et cetera, et cetera. So I "get it", I promise you.

And I mean, for all those other reasons to not cheer for him, least of all it's for being a Coyote. And since we've kind of hashed the social aspects out, I gotta say -- what IS IT with that franchise and their seemingly endless litany of bad behaviour? Like besides this recent draft pick, you have the fact that they drafted that late because they lost draft picks.. their controversy with their GM.. I mean, it seems to go all the way back to Rich Tocchet's gambling ring.

They're like.. the comic relief heel team of the NHL. They're trying to be The Four Horsemen but they're barely at the "Iron Mike Sharp and Barry Horowitz" level. If that.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Or you give a weak bottom 6 as few minutes as possible because you are top 6 heavy team. Compare our bottom 6 to the true contenders and we suck big time. We are below middle of the pack. We can go year after year blaming the coach for not having a balanced lineup or we can take advantage of a unique set of circumstances and see if introducing someone at the NHL level who has proven to produce actually increases our bottom 6 production. I'm mostly a Chevy fan but one of my biggest pet peeves is year after year he leaves us with a s**** bottom 6.

I just don't agree with your assessment of our bottom 6. But I can't say that you are wrong because, as you say, they haven't proven themselves. I think it is Maurice who refuses to set them up to succeed, but it could be that they are just not very good. Their resumes at other levels suggest that they are though.

What is it we should do now? Pay someone an asset (which we don't have any of to spare) to take Perreault and bring in Granlund to play his off-side with Copp - Lowry? Do you think he is going to score more than Roslovic playing on that shut down line? Enough more to justify that cost?

We know our 3rd line is going to be that shutdown line. What is our 4th line likely to look like? Perreault - Thompson - Appleton playing 5 min/game? So you would have MP gone from that line and instead of playing Harkins in that spot you are going with Duclair. Haula at C instead of Thompson. Duclair - Haula - Appleton is still going to get 5 min/game, including PK time. Are Duclair and Haula going to turn around our PK? Are they going to score under those conditions?

I don't see a real plan there KB. The fix for our bottom 6 might have been to trade Lowry. Then we have a 3rd line of Harkins - Copp - Roslovic.

A better bottom 6 is possible but the change needs to start with Maurice.

 

[KingBogo]

I just don't agree with your assessment of our bottom 6. But I can't say that you are wrong because, as you say, they haven't proven themselves. I think it is Maurice who refuses to set them up to succeed, but it could be that they are just not very good. Their resumes at other levels suggest that they are though.

What is it we should do now? Pay someone an asset (which we don't have any of to spare) to take Perreault and bring in Granlund to play his off-side with Copp - Lowry? Do you think he is going to score more than Roslovic playing on that shut down line? Enough more to justify that cost?

We know our 3rd line is going to be that shutdown line. What is our 4th line likely to look like? Perreault - Thompson - Appleton playing 5 min/game? So you would have MP gone from that line and instead of playing Harkins in that spot you are going with Duclair. Haula at C instead of Thompson. Duclair - Haula - Appleton is still going to get 5 min/game, including PK time. Are Duclair and Haula going to turn around our PK? Are they going to score under those conditions?

I don't see a real plan there KB. The fix for our bottom 6 might have been to trade Lowry. Then we have a 3rd line of Harkins - Copp - Roslovic.

A better bottom 6 is possible but the change needs to start with Maurice.

I would say it starts with Chevy because we need the actual players, but Maurice needs to buy in. Maurice's counter point to playing the 4th line 5 minutes is give me enough talent to spread out the ice time. When we made our run to the conference finals our bottom 6 was getting more ice time because we had Little who could center one of the lines. And I'll add it is fans and media that # lines not coaches and players so putting a # on them is arbitrary.

My choice of UFAs would be Haula as he is the truest natural center available. I picture a world where we run bottom 6 lines along of:

Copp-Haula-Roslovic
Harkins-Lowry-Appleton

With a lineup like we can pull back some of the minutes on the top lines and give it to the bottom lines so that the are each playing about 12 minutes. Both would be able win their matchups and we would be a much more complete team.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I would say it starts with Chevy because we need the actual players, but Maurice needs to buy in. Maurice's counter point to playing the 4th line 5 minutes is give me enough talent to spread out the ice time. When we made our run to the conference finals our bottom 6 was getting more ice time because we had Little who could center one of the lines. And I'll add it is fans and media that # lines not coaches and players so putting a # on them is arbitrary.

My choice of UFAs would be Haula as he is the truest natural center available. I picture a world where we run bottom 6 lines along of:

Copp-Haula-Roslovic
Harkins-Lowry-Appleton

With a lineup like we can pull back some of the minutes on the top lines and give it to the bottom lines so that the are each playing about 12 minutes. Both would be able win their matchups and we would be a much more complete team.

We discussed Haula here a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember the details but info was brought up that totally ruled out Haula for me. The best I can recall right now is that it started with him not being a C anymore (for some reason) and having a suspect knee that may never be the same after injury. I'm sure other posters can supply the details.

The numbering of lines is not arbitrary. Coaches may avoid saying it, but it is still crystal clear from TOI and general usage. Is there any doubt which is our 1st line? Sometimes there is doubt about which is 2nd and which is 3rd. That goes to TOI. Maurice sometimes gives his shutdown line 2nd line minutes. There is also no doubt which is our 4th line.

The key piece in your bottom 6 is Lowry, not a replacement 3C. If we build a 4th line around him we can have a helluva 4th line that plays 8-10 minutes, maybe more with special teams time.

We have plenty of possible 3C's. HRA was very good last year, both ways, in its very brief existence. But if you insist on a more proven C, go with Copp there. Harkins - Copp - Roslovic would do well. I would use that 2015 line until they showed that they couldn't do the job. How about Copp/Harkins - Perfetti - Roslovic to bring Perfetti in slowly? Probably not this year, but next year.

I just don't see personnel as the problem here. If these things were tried and failed it would be different. But when they are tried, they succeed. Then, as soon as Lowry and Copp are both healthy at the same time, everything goes back to the way it was.

Somehow bring in Duclair, Haula and Granlund and they are our new 5 minute 4th line. And not a very good one either.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

it's funny...in previous seasons, fans were screaming that Chevy moved too early, that there were always good last-minute UFAs to pick up.
this year, it's the opposite.
goes to show you that you can't keep 100% of fans happy 100% of the time

To be clear, I didn't say I was unhappy. I said that I think Chevy is done.

I had some hopes for more, or different, but the Stastny acquisition dictated the direction. I'm satisfied that we have improved 2C with Stats, RD with DeMelo, LD with prospects and depth D with Forbort, Beaulieu and Sbisa.

The question mark is Stastny. If he has another good year in him, with good wingers, we are much improved over last year. I think he does, but I can't be too confident given his age and his apparent decline last year. Time will tell.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think the bottom 6 is limited by the types of players Maurice wants for it so it impacts the pool of players Chevy gets to choose from.

I don't believe our bottom 6 is weak it is just used in a way the coach wants which limits the offense. Would it matter if we had another good center on the roster or would Maurice just trot out Adam Lowry for second line minutes anyhow cause he wants a tough minute matchup line. Adam Lowry has consistently scored at fourth line rates and he is trucked out continually for big minutes. Do you not think playing an offensively inept player as much as Maurice does has any impact on our third lines scoring rates? Also don't say he doesn't have options, he could have run with Copp as his 3C (Similar defensively with good scoring rates for a 3C) and then Lowry as his fourth C and built around them with Roslovic plus some other wingers.

And that is only 1 of many available options.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I like Duclair. He would be good here.

I would need to know a lot more about Duclair. He has gone through 4 teams over the last 3 years. Go back a 4th year and he was sent down to the AHL despite pretty good production. What was that about? The team that drafted him traded him after only a few games in the NHL. He was 1 piece in a big trade so it didn't look suspicious at the time. But despite mostly pretty good production, in the last 3 years he has been traded cheaply, signed as a FA so presumably not qualified, quickly traded again and then not qualified again. I can't recall ever seeing so many red flags without an obvious explanation coming out in public. I wouldn't touch him with out knowing why no one wants to keep him on their team.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

In particular, let me point this out: just because your desire for further punishment for Mitchell is clearly driven by emotional disgust for his actions (which as I said before is perfectly understandable), that doesn't therefore mean that any opposition to blacklisting him for life must also be driven from an emotional position, in this case from a position of "pity" or "emotional support" for Mitchell.

Similarly, I can have zero sympathy for a child molestor, and still argue that capital punishment for child molestation is either too far on general principles (anti-capital punishment) or logistic ones (the unintended yet obviously predictable consequences for having capital punishment for any crime that doesn't involve ending a life). Of course, anyone who has spent five minutes on the internet knows how futile that would be to articulate that, for the reasons I touched on.

So let me be clear: suffice it to say I'm not going to psychicially herniate myself in an effort to muster sympathy for him. But that doesn't mean that I can't think that it's possible to go beyond what is just in the name of punishing a bad person for bad acts.

I stand by what I said; "you must be blacklisted for life based on what you did at 14" is a punishment that does not fit the crime, as so often are the punishments called for by vigilante mobs. And if you are basing your objection to the Coyotes drafting him on "his punishment did not fit the crime", my response is obvious: why are you then calling for a different punishment that also does not fit the crime?

The obvious answer on your end (please pardon me if I mischaracterized you here) is that you feel that a lifetime blacklisting *is* an appropriate punishment for what he did at 14.

And that's just where we're stuck diverging.

Jumping in a little late here, but you keep referring to what he did at 14, while ignoring that he continued to do it at 15, 16, 17 and AFAIK 18 as well.

I don't think lifetime blacklisting is appropriate punishment for anything that anyone does at 14. But blacklisting until the behaviour stops *is* appropriate for many things.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Ya a 4th round pick isn't great talent but he could average 1 million a year to play a game, that's a pretty good living for being a dirtbag . You have a point to your argument but i just can't cheer for someone like this but that's just me.

You don't need to cheer for him - but at what point can you forgive him?

Maybe talking about forgiveness is wrong. How can I forgive him when I haven't been hurt by his actions? But when should we all be able to put it behind us and move on?

I think that it has to start with a change in behaviour and attitude. The guilty person must see the error in his ways. Is Vick still engaging in dog fighting? Other animal cruelty?

 

[Eyeseeing]

To be clear, I didn't say I was unhappy. I said that I think Chevy is done.

I had some hopes for more, or different, but the Stastny acquisition dictated the direction. I'm satisfied that we have improved 2C with Stats, RD with DeMelo, LD with prospects and depth D with Forbort, Beaulieu and Sbisa.

The question mark is Stastny. If he has another good year in him, with good wingers, we are much improved over last year. I think he does, but I can't be too confident given his age and his apparent decline last year. Time will tell.

Stastny will definitely help this team.
I think he’ll be rejuvenated playing with 2 high skill wingers and I’m hopeful this picks up where it left off.
GJG

 

[tbcwpg]

 

[snowkiddin]

Very interesting

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Stastny will definitely help this team.
I think he’ll be rejuvenated playing with 2 high skill wingers and I’m hopeful this picks up where it left off.
GJG

I think so too, but you can't say definitely. There is significant room for doubt. Even if he hadn't declined last year, at his age there is never certainty. Players can and do fall very quickly.

 

[buggs]

Problem is only MP, who is a shadow of the player he once was has scored even 30 points out of that bottom 6. People say they want a scoring 3rd line then we actually need players who have proven to be able to score. Last season fully 2/3 of our goals came from just 5 players who scored 142/213. Scheifele, Connor, Laine, Ehlers, Wheeler. After that our next highest goal scorer had 12. We all like Appleton but he had all of 8 points in 46 games. He will be a steady player, but don't expect him to start lighting the lamp. Still UFAs all under 30 y/o Grandlund who has had 67 and 69 point seasons. Haula while he has had some recent injury problems is only a couple seasons removed from a 29 G 55 point season. Or maybe Duclair who had 23 G 40 points last season. Just my opinion but these unique circumstances could allow Chevy to pick up a player that actually generates some offense for our bottom 6.

Is it realistic to expect anyone else on the roster to score when the third line eats up so many minutes and puts up so few points? The fourth line in Winnipeg is negligible at best in terms of minutes. Is it lack of talent? Partly. Is it the dependence on our 3rd line to "just keep the puck out of the net"? Partly. Might in not be the usage rather than the lack of talent?

 

[KingBogo]

We discussed Haula here a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember the details but info was brought up that totally ruled out Haula for me. The best I can recall right now is that it started with him not being a C anymore (for some reason) and having a suspect knee that may never be the same after injury. I'm sure other posters can supply the details.

The numbering of lines is not arbitrary. Coaches may avoid saying it, but it is still crystal clear from TOI and general usage. Is there any doubt which is our 1st line? Sometimes there is doubt about which is 2nd and which is 3rd. That goes to TOI. Maurice sometimes gives his shutdown line 2nd line minutes. There is also no doubt which is our 4th line.

The key piece in your bottom 6 is Lowry, not a replacement 3C. If we build a 4th line around him we can have a helluva 4th line that plays 8-10 minutes, maybe more with special teams time.

We have plenty of possible 3C's. HRA was very good last year, both ways, in its very brief existence. But if you insist on a more proven C, go with Copp there. Harkins - Copp - Roslovic would do well. I would use that 2015 line until they showed that they couldn't do the job. How about Copp/Harkins - Perfetti - Roslovic to bring Perfetti in slowly? Probably not this year, but next year.

I just don't see personnel as the problem here. If these things were tried and failed it would be different. But when they are tried, they succeed. Then, as soon as Lowry and Copp are both healthy at the same time, everything goes back to the way it was.

Somehow bring in Duclair, Haula and Granlund and they are our new 5 minute 4th line. And not a very good one either.

Our board's satisfaction with a weak bottom 6 amazes me at times. Sure they are all great players that were just ruined by Maurice. I merely suggest we bring in a player or 2 that has actually produced in the NHL at a 40-70 point pace and build a bottom 6 like most organizations would. Instead we are all happy with whichever prospect fights to the top of a mediocre group then expect them make a difference at the NHL level. Then we get upset when they don't and all revel in blaming Maurice for it.

This season presents a unique opportunity to try and do things differently what do we have to lose?

 

[AlphaLackey]

Very interesting

I mean, only the Coyotes could have drafted him, defended him, then cut him loose like a deuce within the time span they did.

 

[Eyeseeing]

I think so too, but you can't say definitely. There is significant room for doubt. Even if he hadn't declined last year, at his age there is never certainty. Players can and do fall very quickly.

True
I’m taking the position of best case and running with it

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Can't say I like this. Well, except that it is Arizona and they have become a joke. I hate what he did, more than I can say here. I hate that he didn't learn and kept it up even after his conviction. But you don't give the kid a 2nd chance and then snatch it away because you get some negative reaction for that.

One of the tweets replying to this said it. They should now stick with rehabbing the kid and denounce racism and bullying. Mitchell should have to spend the rest of his life working against racism and bullying to redeem himself for what he has done. But someone needs to give him the chance to do that.