I know I am a little bit behind in writing about this as it happened on Thursday and other bloggers have already writted about this at length, but I believe I can provide a little bit of a different viewpoint to what happened at the Annual General Meeting.
Many things were said at the meeting from both sides of the issue. I was impressed with the actual arguments from both groups. I also feel that both sides were stating the truth. This may seem to be a wierd thing to say, as the two sides of the issue were saying opposite things, but I feel that in most cases there is no black or white, just the grey middle ground of reality, and this was no exception.
So what was said, and why do I feel it was all true?
First the anti-frats/sors side that won the vote:
The basic claim is that faternites and sororities are, by their nature, exclusionary and hierarchical. Historically they have a negative reputation of brutal hazings and sexualized violence.
I agree with both of these arguments. They have a selective admission process, even if it is only by gender, and fees to join make it so only those who are economically able to join can do so. I have also heard both first hand and from newspapers about the issues of hazings and sexualized violence.
The arguments of the pro-frats/sors group was:
They are groups that are created to build communities, network with other student bodies, and have fun. The group that wanted to organize on campus said that they would include any self identified woman and not implement any hazings. The fraternity also claimed to not practice any discrimination.
Again, I agree with everything said above. I believe fraternities and sororities can be a lot of fun for many of those involved. I believe that members of fraternities and sororities become part a network of people that will last beyond their university careers. I also believe that the girls that wanted to start a sorority had nothing but the best of intentions and wanted to create a cool space to do their thing.
So how do I reconcile these competing arguments?
I believe that while there are some fraternities and sororities that exist that are good community citizens as described by the pro group, I also believe there are fraternities and sororities that are not. I also believe that if we were to allow fraternities and sororities on campus, it would be difficult to differentiate, at least initially, between groups that are problematic, and those who are not.
Therefore, it comes down to a benefit/cost analysis. The benefits of fraternities and sororities are as stated above: They build longterm networks, they can be fun, and they give those involved a sense of belonging to something.
The costs are: A feeling of exclusion by those who don't get admitted. Potential for psychological and physical hazings. Potential for sexualized violence. Perpetuation of unequal relations that exist in our society.
For me, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. One can say that we should give them a chance. Maybe they won't have brutal hazings. Maybe women wouldn't get raped. But how do you quantify when it isn't okay anymore?
How many people have to be excluded?
How many people have to be hazed?
Do we have to wait for an incident of sexualized violence to happen before we don't allow them? What do we say to the victims of these things?
Sorry, we had to let it happen to you before we decided we don't want these groups? I don't think that would be much consolation to these people. That is assuming these things would even be reported. It is well known that incidences like these are vastly underreported for a variety of reasons.
It is for these reasons that I am very happy that the students of UVic came out to not recognize fraternities and sororities. I feel that the atmosphere at UVic is great as it is, and I hope it stays that way.
On a related note. As frustrating as it was when a certain member tried to subvert the voting process everytime he went up to the mic (I can't remember the name, but I know every person who was at the meeting know who I am talking about). In the end I am happy to hear how people reacted to this guy. I talked to people that said they came to the meeting either undecided or in favour of frats and sors, but based on the conduct of this person, they changed their vote to against frats and sors.
This is a great reminder that no matter how well you know the rules and are able to manipulate them, in a forum that involves voting, and is therefore political, you can't go around being a first class jerk and using those rules to shield you. People don't like it very much.
Rob McDonald
New progressive blog! It is called UVic Underground, and it's a cool new progressive blog for UVic students. I have posted this post on there as well. Hopefully everyone can check it out and contribute.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
I Abstain
I have been having conversations with fellow board members recently on the role of abstentions. There are two points of view on when to use abstentions.
One point of view is that they should only be used in cases of conflict of interest. The other point of view is that there are many times when an absention is ok beyond the mandatory conflict of interest abstentions. I will present the arguments of both sides as well as I can here and then I will say which point of view I prefer.
The first view is that abstentions should only be used in conflict of interest situations. The reasoning is that we are on the board to represent the students. We are obliged to vote on an issue one way or another for students. It is a cop out if we don't make a choice one way or another. Comparisons can be made to the parliament where they have to vote one way or another. If we don't make a vote on an issue, we are not fulfilling our duties as a director.
The other view is that there are a variety of situations in which an abstention can and should be used. The two most common situations when abstentions are used are as follows. The first is when you are torn by two sides of an argument. You are in favour of it in some aspects, but other parts of it dont' sit well with you. You don't really want to support it, but you also don't really want it to fail. People who say one should always have to vote would say this is a political cop out and that you should make a vote one way or another.
The other situation is if you don't really know enough or don't care one way or another about an issue. You feel it's not your place to sway the issue one way or the other. The always vote proponents would say that these are poor excuses for not voting. It is our responsiblility to care about all the issues on the students' behalf and to be well researched enough to make those votes, otherwise we are not doing our duty as directors.
I have abstained for both of the above reasons, more the former than the latter. I have felt that I don't want to sway the vote one way or another so I want the rest of the votes to sort out what was going to happen. However, if I feel a vote is going to be close and my vote will be important one way or another, I am much more hesitant to abstain from the voting. I can think of only one time where I chose to abstain on a close issue. In that case, it was a very grey area kind of vote and I was completely unsure as to which way I should vote, so I just didn't. In most cases however, if a person's vote (or non-vote) is likely to sway a decision on way or another, I am opposed to abstaining.
So what does everyone else think? Did I miss anything? Why should a director be able to abstain or not?
Rob McDonald
One point of view is that they should only be used in cases of conflict of interest. The other point of view is that there are many times when an absention is ok beyond the mandatory conflict of interest abstentions. I will present the arguments of both sides as well as I can here and then I will say which point of view I prefer.
The first view is that abstentions should only be used in conflict of interest situations. The reasoning is that we are on the board to represent the students. We are obliged to vote on an issue one way or another for students. It is a cop out if we don't make a choice one way or another. Comparisons can be made to the parliament where they have to vote one way or another. If we don't make a vote on an issue, we are not fulfilling our duties as a director.
The other view is that there are a variety of situations in which an abstention can and should be used. The two most common situations when abstentions are used are as follows. The first is when you are torn by two sides of an argument. You are in favour of it in some aspects, but other parts of it dont' sit well with you. You don't really want to support it, but you also don't really want it to fail. People who say one should always have to vote would say this is a political cop out and that you should make a vote one way or another.
The other situation is if you don't really know enough or don't care one way or another about an issue. You feel it's not your place to sway the issue one way or the other. The always vote proponents would say that these are poor excuses for not voting. It is our responsiblility to care about all the issues on the students' behalf and to be well researched enough to make those votes, otherwise we are not doing our duty as directors.
I have abstained for both of the above reasons, more the former than the latter. I have felt that I don't want to sway the vote one way or another so I want the rest of the votes to sort out what was going to happen. However, if I feel a vote is going to be close and my vote will be important one way or another, I am much more hesitant to abstain from the voting. I can think of only one time where I chose to abstain on a close issue. In that case, it was a very grey area kind of vote and I was completely unsure as to which way I should vote, so I just didn't. In most cases however, if a person's vote (or non-vote) is likely to sway a decision on way or another, I am opposed to abstaining.
So what does everyone else think? Did I miss anything? Why should a director be able to abstain or not?
Rob McDonald
Friday, August 20, 2010
Summertime news
Hey all,
Sorry I have neglected this lately, I have been bogged down with school and computer troubles, both both are over now, so i should be posting here more regularly!
So summertime news:
The UVSS has a new health plan. This is a pretty big thing that we've been working on over the summer, and the details have all now been finalized. It is a much better deal for students than the previous deal. We will now have better coverage, including vision and travel insurance, and next year it will cost students less money. There will be communications sent out to all UVic students in the fall, so look out for it. I wanted to link to it on the website, but it's not there, nor are we registered into Student Care's system yet. Hopefully this gets sorted out soon.
There will be a garden built in front of the SUB! I wish I could claim some amount of credit for this as I was working on a garden proposal, but alas, all the work and planning for this garden was done before my time. I am pleased to say that this is even better than the garden I was trying to make happen, so I'm very excited about it. Look for the ground breaking to happen either near the end of the fall semester or the beginning of the spring semester.
The SUB now has a slurpee machine in SUBText, go buy slurpees and then get your teeth checked using the health plan!
I am now working at the UVic Bookstore. Come by and say hi while you stock up on your textbooks.
More has definitely happened but that's all I can think of. I promise to write more in depth about some issues soon.
Rob McDonald
wideeyecinema.com is a website that is all about documentaries (and not quite documentaries) for things raging from health to conspiracy theories. Definitely worth checking out, if only just to see the all the stuff that is out there.
Sorry I have neglected this lately, I have been bogged down with school and computer troubles, both both are over now, so i should be posting here more regularly!
So summertime news:
The UVSS has a new health plan. This is a pretty big thing that we've been working on over the summer, and the details have all now been finalized. It is a much better deal for students than the previous deal. We will now have better coverage, including vision and travel insurance, and next year it will cost students less money. There will be communications sent out to all UVic students in the fall, so look out for it. I wanted to link to it on the website, but it's not there, nor are we registered into Student Care's system yet. Hopefully this gets sorted out soon.
There will be a garden built in front of the SUB! I wish I could claim some amount of credit for this as I was working on a garden proposal, but alas, all the work and planning for this garden was done before my time. I am pleased to say that this is even better than the garden I was trying to make happen, so I'm very excited about it. Look for the ground breaking to happen either near the end of the fall semester or the beginning of the spring semester.
The SUB now has a slurpee machine in SUBText, go buy slurpees and then get your teeth checked using the health plan!
I am now working at the UVic Bookstore. Come by and say hi while you stock up on your textbooks.
More has definitely happened but that's all I can think of. I promise to write more in depth about some issues soon.
Rob McDonald
wideeyecinema.com is a website that is all about documentaries (and not quite documentaries) for things raging from health to conspiracy theories. Definitely worth checking out, if only just to see the all the stuff that is out there.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Life of Rob
I thought I'd write a little history about me so that those of you who don't know me very well can have a better idea of where I'm coming from. I will only hit the more interesting things here, so keep in mind that it is not everything I have ever done.
I was born in New Westminster and lived in Vancouver until I was seven years old. Then we moved up to Quesnel BC for half a year before moving 55 miles outside of Quesnel in the middle of the woods. It was November and below -20c and we lived in a teepee for a month until we got the walls built on our one room trailer with an addition. Needless to say this was quite the culture shock. We moved around to different places out of town until I graduated from high school. My best friend growing up was our 3/4 wolf dog named Grizz. Other pets included at times a baby bear, a racoon, and a cat named Homer who liked to beat up coyotes.
After graduating from high school with straight A's I had planned to go to BCIT to do a broadcast journalism program. Instead, I changed my mind and decided to join the carnival to save up money to go to a Wilderness Survival School. I still rate the courses I took there as the most amazing experiences I ever had. I took me two years to save up for my first course in California, which was focused on physical survival skills, and then one more year to save up for two more courses in New Jersey, which focused more on Native American Philosophy.
I then moved back to Quesnel where I worked at Panago, studied Nutritional Consulting through Alive Academy of Nutrition, and got involved with the Metis. I sat on the Metis board of directors as a youth rep, and got involved with traditional Metis step-dancing, performing at various venues and eventually teaching it. I grew tired of the cold Quesnel winters and moved to Mexico for 6 months to teach English. I found I wasn't a very good English teacher and moved back to Quesnel. I soon discovered internet poker and learned that I could make an acceptable amount of money at it.
Based on the knowledge that I could make money anywhere as long as I had an internet connection, I decided that to move to Victoria where the winters are very mild. I also moved here with the intention of getting involved with the Green Party. I quickly got involved with the party and became the campaign manager for candidate Ariel Lade in the 2006 federal election. Around the same time the competition in poker became much tougher so I had to get a real job again after the election. I ended up going to Panago to manage the Shelbourne location. After a year of that I moved to Toronto, Ontario for a few months to work in the MMP campaign for a proportionate electoral system in that province. When that campaign finished I came back to Victoria and took over the management of the Panago in Esquimalt.
It was at this time that I knew I needed a career instead of hopping from one thing to the next, so after a year at Esquimalt, I decided to go back to school and applied to UVic. I am now starting my 3rd year at UVic and I enjoy it very much. In the past two years I have started my own club where I teach wilderness survival skills to students. I have been involved in the Model UN Club, and I now sit on the UVSS board of directors.
Hopefully this has been a fun read for everyone!
Rob McDonald
Tom Brown's Tracking, Nature, and Wilderness Survival School is a world renowned school that teaches wilderness survival skills and Native American Philosophy. Tom has written several books on the topic, which are how I found out about the school. His books opened my eyes to how our society is destroying our natural surroundings and the need to change our societal values in order to preserve the natural environment that sustains us. It is his books and classes that provide the guide force of my life and points towards the things I need to accomplish.
I was born in New Westminster and lived in Vancouver until I was seven years old. Then we moved up to Quesnel BC for half a year before moving 55 miles outside of Quesnel in the middle of the woods. It was November and below -20c and we lived in a teepee for a month until we got the walls built on our one room trailer with an addition. Needless to say this was quite the culture shock. We moved around to different places out of town until I graduated from high school. My best friend growing up was our 3/4 wolf dog named Grizz. Other pets included at times a baby bear, a racoon, and a cat named Homer who liked to beat up coyotes.
After graduating from high school with straight A's I had planned to go to BCIT to do a broadcast journalism program. Instead, I changed my mind and decided to join the carnival to save up money to go to a Wilderness Survival School. I still rate the courses I took there as the most amazing experiences I ever had. I took me two years to save up for my first course in California, which was focused on physical survival skills, and then one more year to save up for two more courses in New Jersey, which focused more on Native American Philosophy.
I then moved back to Quesnel where I worked at Panago, studied Nutritional Consulting through Alive Academy of Nutrition, and got involved with the Metis. I sat on the Metis board of directors as a youth rep, and got involved with traditional Metis step-dancing, performing at various venues and eventually teaching it. I grew tired of the cold Quesnel winters and moved to Mexico for 6 months to teach English. I found I wasn't a very good English teacher and moved back to Quesnel. I soon discovered internet poker and learned that I could make an acceptable amount of money at it.
Based on the knowledge that I could make money anywhere as long as I had an internet connection, I decided that to move to Victoria where the winters are very mild. I also moved here with the intention of getting involved with the Green Party. I quickly got involved with the party and became the campaign manager for candidate Ariel Lade in the 2006 federal election. Around the same time the competition in poker became much tougher so I had to get a real job again after the election. I ended up going to Panago to manage the Shelbourne location. After a year of that I moved to Toronto, Ontario for a few months to work in the MMP campaign for a proportionate electoral system in that province. When that campaign finished I came back to Victoria and took over the management of the Panago in Esquimalt.
It was at this time that I knew I needed a career instead of hopping from one thing to the next, so after a year at Esquimalt, I decided to go back to school and applied to UVic. I am now starting my 3rd year at UVic and I enjoy it very much. In the past two years I have started my own club where I teach wilderness survival skills to students. I have been involved in the Model UN Club, and I now sit on the UVSS board of directors.
Hopefully this has been a fun read for everyone!
Rob McDonald
Tom Brown's Tracking, Nature, and Wilderness Survival School is a world renowned school that teaches wilderness survival skills and Native American Philosophy. Tom has written several books on the topic, which are how I found out about the school. His books opened my eyes to how our society is destroying our natural surroundings and the need to change our societal values in order to preserve the natural environment that sustains us. It is his books and classes that provide the guide force of my life and points towards the things I need to accomplish.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Role of Student Politics
There was much discussion around UVic during the election campaign in March about what role student politics should encompass. There were two key strains of thought on this issue. One strain of thought is that student politics should be related, as much as possible, to only those issues which happen on campus and not anything else. The other point of view is that student politics should focus on larger student issues that fall outside of campus as well.
The first strain of thought supposes that all we can or should affect are on campus student issues. So the specific focus for this group is providing great events, keeping fees down, focusing on on campus services, and managing the clubs and course unions. This is not an extensive list and sometimes the focus does fall onto broader issues, such as transit opportunities and student debt.
The other strain also focuses on all these issues, as they are indded quite important. The difference is that this group also feels that the role of student politics should also be expanded to how students interact within the communities in which they live. Big issues here would be the transit issue, legalization of secondary suites, environmental sustainability, and others. The reasoning is that students live and work in the larger community and it is our job to represent students in all capacities. This is the camp which I am in, I believe all parts of our society are connected and we have to acknowledge that reality and interact with society as a whole based on this reality.
I also want to take this a step further and examine the effects of student politics on the community at large. One reason I am in favour of student politics focusing on larger community issues is because I feel that student politics already affects the community regardless of what focus we take, whether is be solely on campus or otherwise. I say this because once the students involved in student politics graduate from school, they will take the skills and views they adopted into the broader community with them, many into larger political spheres. This being the case, the strains of thought that are promoted in student politics can become very influential in municipal, provincial, and federal politics. The interconnectedness of many issues becomes even more apparent at each of these levels. Thus, having a broader perspective within student politics can translate to having broader perspectives at the municipal, provincial, and most importantly, federal levels. I feel this is very important for our society in this day and age, where the interconnectedness of many divergent issues is becoming increasingly apparent. This is why I feel it is not productive to have a limited view of what student politics should be during our time in school.
Rob McDonald
The first strain of thought supposes that all we can or should affect are on campus student issues. So the specific focus for this group is providing great events, keeping fees down, focusing on on campus services, and managing the clubs and course unions. This is not an extensive list and sometimes the focus does fall onto broader issues, such as transit opportunities and student debt.
The other strain also focuses on all these issues, as they are indded quite important. The difference is that this group also feels that the role of student politics should also be expanded to how students interact within the communities in which they live. Big issues here would be the transit issue, legalization of secondary suites, environmental sustainability, and others. The reasoning is that students live and work in the larger community and it is our job to represent students in all capacities. This is the camp which I am in, I believe all parts of our society are connected and we have to acknowledge that reality and interact with society as a whole based on this reality.
I also want to take this a step further and examine the effects of student politics on the community at large. One reason I am in favour of student politics focusing on larger community issues is because I feel that student politics already affects the community regardless of what focus we take, whether is be solely on campus or otherwise. I say this because once the students involved in student politics graduate from school, they will take the skills and views they adopted into the broader community with them, many into larger political spheres. This being the case, the strains of thought that are promoted in student politics can become very influential in municipal, provincial, and federal politics. The interconnectedness of many issues becomes even more apparent at each of these levels. Thus, having a broader perspective within student politics can translate to having broader perspectives at the municipal, provincial, and most importantly, federal levels. I feel this is very important for our society in this day and age, where the interconnectedness of many divergent issues is becoming increasingly apparent. This is why I feel it is not productive to have a limited view of what student politics should be during our time in school.
Rob McDonald
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Protesting the G20
It may seem a little bit late to look at the issues surrounding the G20, but I have wanted some time to collect my thoughts on the issue. This post is more thinking about the role of protesting in our society than that of the G20. The G20 is simply the most visible recent venue where all the issues surrounding protesting have come to the fore. The big issue of the G20 protests was the amount of security surrounding the event and the number violations of protesters rights by the police during the protests.
The story starts with the announcement of the $1 billion budget for security for the two days of the G20. This alone would cause me to protest, nevermind whether I agreed with the event or not. I feel that this budget and the seemingly weekly announcements of what weapons would be put to use during the protests set the tone for how the protests would unfold before the G20 even started. These were very intimidating and antagonistic gestures that were meant to put fear into the hearts of those who were contemplating disturbing the event. My feeling is it had the opposite effect on many people, angering them even more about the G20 event and causing them to go out and have their voice be heard.
One the G20 started, I was not at all surprised that the tone of the protests was exactly what it was. What did surprise me was the complete abuse of power used against the protesters. Say what you will about the behaviour of the protesters; detaining huge blocks of people for as long as they could, beating people, and threatening rape represents a gross misconduct on the part of the police, and the calls for more far-reaching inquiries should not go unheeded.
Of course, the behaviour of the protesters also needs to be examined. Unquestionably, there were some violent outbursts amongst the protesters, and the people committing this violence needed to be dealt with. A big problem with figuring out how hard the police should have come down on the protesters is the possibility that the most violent actions of the protesters may have been committed by police provocateurs themselves. Ever since it was proven a couple of years ago that police infiltrated the protesters in order to undermine the protest movement by creating violence, and the following police crackdown on protesters, one must question the amount of violence and damage that legitimate protesters actually cause. This opens the door for protesters to commit acts of violence and then place the blame on police provocateurs. When we don't know who did what, it is hard to figure out who is in the right.
The bigger question, though, is what has become the role of protests in our current society. It is painfully obvious that our current government doesn't want to hear the voices of anyone but themselves, so it is no surprise that they would try to undermind the protest movement in any way they can. The problem is that I feel that protests should be a very powerful way that people can express their dissatisfaction with how the government is conducting itself. Instead of acknowledging those feelings, the government is trying to stifle that voice, leaving no place for the dissatisfied people to express their opinions. This further distances people from the political process, leading less and less people to be motivated to participate at even the most basic political level, voting. When citizens are restricted in the tools they can use to influence government policy, and many are moved to apathy by the feeling of disgust with the political process, this is very bad for democracy. So bad that we can question whether it really is a democracy at all.
It is interesting to note that there was a protest march targeted at the lack of inquiries into the G20 abuses. The protest was said to go very smoothly as the police were very accommodating to protesters. It makes one wonder what the actual G20 protests would have been like if the police had taken this attitude in the first place.
Rob McDonald
The story starts with the announcement of the $1 billion budget for security for the two days of the G20. This alone would cause me to protest, nevermind whether I agreed with the event or not. I feel that this budget and the seemingly weekly announcements of what weapons would be put to use during the protests set the tone for how the protests would unfold before the G20 even started. These were very intimidating and antagonistic gestures that were meant to put fear into the hearts of those who were contemplating disturbing the event. My feeling is it had the opposite effect on many people, angering them even more about the G20 event and causing them to go out and have their voice be heard.
One the G20 started, I was not at all surprised that the tone of the protests was exactly what it was. What did surprise me was the complete abuse of power used against the protesters. Say what you will about the behaviour of the protesters; detaining huge blocks of people for as long as they could, beating people, and threatening rape represents a gross misconduct on the part of the police, and the calls for more far-reaching inquiries should not go unheeded.
Of course, the behaviour of the protesters also needs to be examined. Unquestionably, there were some violent outbursts amongst the protesters, and the people committing this violence needed to be dealt with. A big problem with figuring out how hard the police should have come down on the protesters is the possibility that the most violent actions of the protesters may have been committed by police provocateurs themselves. Ever since it was proven a couple of years ago that police infiltrated the protesters in order to undermine the protest movement by creating violence, and the following police crackdown on protesters, one must question the amount of violence and damage that legitimate protesters actually cause. This opens the door for protesters to commit acts of violence and then place the blame on police provocateurs. When we don't know who did what, it is hard to figure out who is in the right.
The bigger question, though, is what has become the role of protests in our current society. It is painfully obvious that our current government doesn't want to hear the voices of anyone but themselves, so it is no surprise that they would try to undermind the protest movement in any way they can. The problem is that I feel that protests should be a very powerful way that people can express their dissatisfaction with how the government is conducting itself. Instead of acknowledging those feelings, the government is trying to stifle that voice, leaving no place for the dissatisfied people to express their opinions. This further distances people from the political process, leading less and less people to be motivated to participate at even the most basic political level, voting. When citizens are restricted in the tools they can use to influence government policy, and many are moved to apathy by the feeling of disgust with the political process, this is very bad for democracy. So bad that we can question whether it really is a democracy at all.
It is interesting to note that there was a protest march targeted at the lack of inquiries into the G20 abuses. The protest was said to go very smoothly as the police were very accommodating to protesters. It makes one wonder what the actual G20 protests would have been like if the police had taken this attitude in the first place.
Rob McDonald
Friday, July 2, 2010
Curious Free Agent Days
July 1st was the opening of free agent season in the NHL. As a hockey fan, it is one of the most exciting times of the year. This is the time when you hope that your favorite team can snag that player you think will put them over the top. This can also be the time when your favorite team shells out ridiculous money that they are going to regret in the long run. Being a Canucks fan has been rewarding in the recent past at this time of year. The biggest deal wasn't a free agent signing, but a summertime trade that brought Roberto Luongo to the Canucks in exchange for Todd Bertuzzi and others. It was a Canucks fan's dream come true. This year I am excited again. In discussing who I would want most amongst friends, Dan Hamhuis is a name that was at or near the top of everyone's list. It didn't look like it would happen with both Philly and then Pittsburgh trading for his rights, which made it all the more exciting when word came that Canucks had got their guy. In this post I will write about the moves of all the Canadian teams (From west to east), as well as the other more interesting moves made in the NHL in the past couple of days.
Vancouver Canucks
As stated already, they got Hamhuis, and I'm very happy about that. Along with the trade at the draft to acquire Keith Ballard, this gives Vancouver a very solid defense. Although, at the start of the season last year I also thought the Canucks would have a very solid defense. Having said that, I think this year's addition is one top four player better, and that could be the player that puts them over the top. The other most notable signing they made was to give Manny Malholtra a three year deal worth $2.5 million per year. Most of the response to this signing has been positive, but I find it to be a curious deal. I am wondering where they are going to fit him in. He is a centre and the first to lines are set with Henrik Sedin and Ryan Kesler. This leaves the third and fourth lines open. At that price, you would think that they signed Malhotra to play on the third line, but then what about Cody Hodgsen? It is general consensus that he should be ready to make the jump to the NHL this year, and he is also a centreman. A player like him you don't want to put on the fourth line, it would probably be more beneficial for him to play in the minors and get the ice time than for him to play on the fourth line. Maybe you shift him to the wing on the second or third line? If not, you have Malhotra playing on the fourth line, and I think $2.5 mil is too much to be paying for a fourth line centre, especially when it was Gillis' stated goal to get a guy who has won the cup before, and Malholtra has not.
Calgary Flames
What can I say here that hasn't already been said? I actually like the Alex Tanguay signing. He and Iginla did play well together. But Olli Jokinen? Really? This guy is going to have to have a point per game season to stop the vitriol that is being directed at Darryl Sutter. As a Canucks fan, I'm loving this, but you gotta feel for Flames fans right now, they must feel like they just got punched in the gut.
Edmonton Oilers
They managed to pick up Kurtis Foster, which I think was a very good signing. This guy has displayed some very good potential at both ends of the rink, he just needs to stay healthy. The curious move involves a very similar kind of player. Edmonton has waived Sheldon Souray. I'm a pretty big hockey fan and other than Foster, Souray, Ladislav Smid, and Jason Strudwick, I can name another Oilers defenseman. This leads me to believe that Edmonton does not have the depth to just give away a defenseman of the caliber of Souray, no matter how injury prone he is. I could understand if the Oilers were up against the cap, but before July 1st, they had $20 million in cap space even with Souray's $5.25 million on the books. I just feel like some team is going to pick up Souray, and he's going to make the Oilers look really bad for giving him away for nothing. Maybe the strategy is to finish last again so they can get two really high draft picks like Pittsburg, Chicago, Washington, and Tampa Bay did.
Toronto Maple Leafs
Colby Armstrong? Hahahaha. Moving on. (Trading for Kris Versteeg was actually a good move though, I just can't resist mocking the Leafs)
Ottawa Senators
I'm torn about Ottawa's moves. They lost Anton Volchenkov, but gained Sergei Gonchar. Most of the comments have been deriding Bryan Murray for giving Gonchar $5 million for three years, but I think Gonchar still has enough left in the tank for the style of game he plays. The problem is they lost Volchenkov to get Gonchar. In looking foward to free agency, I had Volchenkov even with Hamhuis as the top two guys I wanted the Canucks to sign. This guy is a super strong defensive defenseman that gets the job done. I don't think Ottawa has anyone else near that caliber that can step into that same role. I think if I was in Ottawa, i would have preferred to retain Volchenkov rather than signing Gonchar.
Montreal Canadiens
They signed two veteran backup goalies in Alex Auld and Curtis Sanford to support Carey Price after they didn't get their guy in Dan Ellis. I think Ellis would have been a better fit, but neither of these guys is bad. Either of them could play 20-25 games to spell Price, my preference is Auld, but if Price really falters, the Canadiens will be in trouble, neither of these guys will be able to step up and take the reigns.
Most ridiculous signing:
Yes there was a signing that made even less sense than Olli Jokinen going back to the Flames, and the was the New York Rangers signing Derek Boogaard for $1.65 million per year is absolutely incredible. The only thing this guy can do is fight, and he doesn't even do that very much. With all the poor signings Glen Sather has made, it's curious that there aren't even rumors that his job is in jeopardy.
Most interesting signing:
Antero Niittymaki going to the San Jose Sharks. The finger was squarely pointed at Evgeni Nabokov for letting in goals at the wrong time during the playoffs and taking all the momentum out of San Jose's sails. This summer they opted to let Nabokov walk and went for a cheaper option in Niittymaki at $2 million per year for two years. According to their plan, all he has to do is be solid like Niemi, Fleury, and Osgood have been in recent playoffs and they should do better. Niittymaki does have the ability to get really hot and was solid this past season in Tampa Bay. It will be interesting to see if this move puts them over the top.
Final Note:
This isn't hockey related, but it was absolutely heartbreaking to see how Ghana lost their World Cup Quarter-Final game against Uruguay today. Their were full value for making it as far as they did, and hopefully we will see an African team make it to at least to the semi-finals sometime in the near future.
Rob McDonald
Canucks.com... the name pretty much says it all.
Vancouver Canucks
As stated already, they got Hamhuis, and I'm very happy about that. Along with the trade at the draft to acquire Keith Ballard, this gives Vancouver a very solid defense. Although, at the start of the season last year I also thought the Canucks would have a very solid defense. Having said that, I think this year's addition is one top four player better, and that could be the player that puts them over the top. The other most notable signing they made was to give Manny Malholtra a three year deal worth $2.5 million per year. Most of the response to this signing has been positive, but I find it to be a curious deal. I am wondering where they are going to fit him in. He is a centre and the first to lines are set with Henrik Sedin and Ryan Kesler. This leaves the third and fourth lines open. At that price, you would think that they signed Malhotra to play on the third line, but then what about Cody Hodgsen? It is general consensus that he should be ready to make the jump to the NHL this year, and he is also a centreman. A player like him you don't want to put on the fourth line, it would probably be more beneficial for him to play in the minors and get the ice time than for him to play on the fourth line. Maybe you shift him to the wing on the second or third line? If not, you have Malhotra playing on the fourth line, and I think $2.5 mil is too much to be paying for a fourth line centre, especially when it was Gillis' stated goal to get a guy who has won the cup before, and Malholtra has not.
Calgary Flames
What can I say here that hasn't already been said? I actually like the Alex Tanguay signing. He and Iginla did play well together. But Olli Jokinen? Really? This guy is going to have to have a point per game season to stop the vitriol that is being directed at Darryl Sutter. As a Canucks fan, I'm loving this, but you gotta feel for Flames fans right now, they must feel like they just got punched in the gut.
Edmonton Oilers
They managed to pick up Kurtis Foster, which I think was a very good signing. This guy has displayed some very good potential at both ends of the rink, he just needs to stay healthy. The curious move involves a very similar kind of player. Edmonton has waived Sheldon Souray. I'm a pretty big hockey fan and other than Foster, Souray, Ladislav Smid, and Jason Strudwick, I can name another Oilers defenseman. This leads me to believe that Edmonton does not have the depth to just give away a defenseman of the caliber of Souray, no matter how injury prone he is. I could understand if the Oilers were up against the cap, but before July 1st, they had $20 million in cap space even with Souray's $5.25 million on the books. I just feel like some team is going to pick up Souray, and he's going to make the Oilers look really bad for giving him away for nothing. Maybe the strategy is to finish last again so they can get two really high draft picks like Pittsburg, Chicago, Washington, and Tampa Bay did.
Toronto Maple Leafs
Colby Armstrong? Hahahaha. Moving on. (Trading for Kris Versteeg was actually a good move though, I just can't resist mocking the Leafs)
Ottawa Senators
I'm torn about Ottawa's moves. They lost Anton Volchenkov, but gained Sergei Gonchar. Most of the comments have been deriding Bryan Murray for giving Gonchar $5 million for three years, but I think Gonchar still has enough left in the tank for the style of game he plays. The problem is they lost Volchenkov to get Gonchar. In looking foward to free agency, I had Volchenkov even with Hamhuis as the top two guys I wanted the Canucks to sign. This guy is a super strong defensive defenseman that gets the job done. I don't think Ottawa has anyone else near that caliber that can step into that same role. I think if I was in Ottawa, i would have preferred to retain Volchenkov rather than signing Gonchar.
Montreal Canadiens
They signed two veteran backup goalies in Alex Auld and Curtis Sanford to support Carey Price after they didn't get their guy in Dan Ellis. I think Ellis would have been a better fit, but neither of these guys is bad. Either of them could play 20-25 games to spell Price, my preference is Auld, but if Price really falters, the Canadiens will be in trouble, neither of these guys will be able to step up and take the reigns.
Most ridiculous signing:
Yes there was a signing that made even less sense than Olli Jokinen going back to the Flames, and the was the New York Rangers signing Derek Boogaard for $1.65 million per year is absolutely incredible. The only thing this guy can do is fight, and he doesn't even do that very much. With all the poor signings Glen Sather has made, it's curious that there aren't even rumors that his job is in jeopardy.
Most interesting signing:
Antero Niittymaki going to the San Jose Sharks. The finger was squarely pointed at Evgeni Nabokov for letting in goals at the wrong time during the playoffs and taking all the momentum out of San Jose's sails. This summer they opted to let Nabokov walk and went for a cheaper option in Niittymaki at $2 million per year for two years. According to their plan, all he has to do is be solid like Niemi, Fleury, and Osgood have been in recent playoffs and they should do better. Niittymaki does have the ability to get really hot and was solid this past season in Tampa Bay. It will be interesting to see if this move puts them over the top.
Final Note:
This isn't hockey related, but it was absolutely heartbreaking to see how Ghana lost their World Cup Quarter-Final game against Uruguay today. Their were full value for making it as far as they did, and hopefully we will see an African team make it to at least to the semi-finals sometime in the near future.
Rob McDonald
Canucks.com... the name pretty much says it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)