[Signing] Oilers sign Corey Perry to a one-year contract ($775K + performance bonuses)

[WillisD]

Wow. The amount of dickheads on that team just keeps on growing. It's like a fountain of dickheads

[Miss Korea]

 

[NHLer]

From one Connor's mom to another Connor's mom? And I'm not talking about Connor Brown's mom. 

[Captain Hughes]

This just in! Oilers have hired OJ Simpson as their mascot!

[sxqhfeh]

Low risk, high reward signing, can't believe we missed that

[lionized27]

7 minutes ago, sxqhfeh said:

Low risk, high reward signing, can't believe we missed that

The Canucks aren't in the market for bottom 6 forewards. 

[Miss Korea]

27 minutes ago, lionized27 said:

The Canucks aren't in the market for bottom 6 forewards. 

Controversy aside, the only way to make Perry work is to push Lafferty to centre.  And his position is not guaranteed with Åman and Di Giuseppe as backup.  Much better for him to go to Edmonton where the bottom six is widen open. 

[Coconuts]

Sounds like he drank too much and made a pass at someone, not the end of the world. If he'd been a member of any franchise that hadn't just covered up a sexual assault we probably wouldn't have heard about it. Assuming he was just flirting and not harassing.

 

Could have been a no alcohol at team functions thing too.

 

 

https://dailyhive.com/toronto/john-scott-corey-perry-blackhawks-oilers

 

Edited January 24 by Coconuts

[aGENT]

24 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Sounds like he drank too much and made a pass at someone, not the end of the world. If he'd been a member of any franchise that hadn't just covered up a sexual assault we probably wouldn't have heard about it. Assuming he was just flirting and not harassing.

 

Could have been a no alcohol at team functions thing too.

 

 

https://dailyhive.com/toronto/john-scott-corey-perry-blackhawks-oilers

 

 

You don't get fired for "just flirting". 

[Coconuts]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

You don't get fired for "just flirting". 

 

I don't know, if it were another franchise I'd question it more, Chicago will likely do anything they can to avoid bad press at this point 

 

The cover up is going to loom over that franchise for years, I wouldn't be surprised if they were trigger happy 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

 

I don't know, if it were another franchise I'd question it more, Chicago will likely do anything they can to avoid bad press at this point 

 

The cover up is going to loom over that franchise for years, I wouldn't be surprised if they were trigger happy 

 

It wasn't just a drunken "Hey, you're pretty, can I buy you a drink?" situation is what I'm getting at. Again, you don't get fired for "just flirting". He had to have been inappropriate in some manner. Let's not excuse it away.

[Coconuts]

20 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

It wasn't just a drunken "Hey, you're pretty, can I buy you a drink?" situation is what I'm getting at. Again, you don't get fired for "just flirting". He had to have been inappropriate in some manner. Let's not excuse it away.

 

He did something, absolutely, I just question the gravity of it within the context of his being part of a Blackhawks organization shrouded in controversy 

 

Hawks can't afford bad PR, if he'd been part of another franchise it may have just been a slap on the wrist 

 

I just question the speed some folks around the hockey community demonized him, the league clearly doesn't want bad PR either, I reckon that if there'd been any weight to what occurred he wouldn't be an Oiler

 

Which isn't to say he didn't violate contract law, if he hadn't the Hawks wouldn't have had a case for termination 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

He did something, absolutely, I just question the gravity of it within the context of his being part of a Blackhawks organization shrouded in controversy 

 

Hawks can't afford bad PR, if he'd been part of another franchise it may have just been a slap on the wrist 

 

I just question the speed some folks around the hockey community demonized him, the league clearly doesn't want bad PR either, I reckon that if there'd been any weight to what occurred he wouldn't be an Oiler

 

Which isn't to say he didn't violate contract law, if he hadn't the Hawks wouldn't have had a case for termination 

 

Yup, had to be at least some mix of inappropriate/unwanted comments/physical contact or otherwise threatening behavior that made the NBC reporter feel unsafe.

 

Again though, that's not "just flirting". That's at best, sexual harassment. Which would be ground for contract termination (unlike "just flirting").

 

Something Scott shouldn't be attempting to brush under the rug... Though not surprising given "hockey culture".

[Coconuts]

20 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Yup, had to be at least some mix of inappropriate/unwanted comments/physical contact or otherwise threatening behavior that made the NBC reporter feel unsafe.

 

Again though, that's not "just flirting". That's at best, sexual harassment. Which would be ground for contract termination (unlike "just flirting").

 

Something Scott shouldn't be attempting to brush under the rug... Though not surprising given "hockey culture".

 

I don't disagree, sexual harassment isn't appropriate, the scenario begs questioning though for me I suppose. 

 

As far as I can tell Perry hasn't had a track record of behaviour like this, folks can say what they want about him as a player on the ice, but I've never really heard anything negative about him off the ice. I view this scenario as Perry being a guy who did something shitty, but I don't necessarily view him as a shitty person because of it. He wasn't charged with anything, nothing criminal came of it, but I also don't necessarily believe legal implications are what define people as "good" or "bad", the law frequently gets things wrong too. But even "wrong" is a matter of debate. 

 

On the flip side, we have these young guys in the news with hockey Canada who may end up being charged with sexual assault. I'd have said the same thing about them prior to this, hadn't heard negative things, but sexual assault is clearly a more serious matter. Saying something appropriate versus doing something of that weight isn't the same, but I also recognize that both are negative things. 

 

I understand the argument that folks are defined by their actions, and I agree to an extent, but I also question where the line is. We all know folks who have done things they aren't proud of, things that your or I may not do, things that may have even been criminal, but most people aren't static. I also recognize that the line isn't black and white, and that it's likely different for everyone. Most of us probably take this sort of thing on a case by case basis, all scenarios aren't equal or the same. 

 

Principles, beliefs, ideals, and ideologies are complicated things, maybe for some more than others, but we don't live in a world of black and white, there's a lot of grey in-between. 

 

Hockey culture can absolutely be toxic, but how much of x or y makes a person toxic? 

 

This is a bit off topic, but it's where my head went. It's interesting to reflect upon. 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

I don't disagree, sexual harassment isn't appropriate, the scenario begs questioning though for me I suppose. 

 

As far as I can tell Perry hasn't had a track record of behaviour like this, folks can say what they want about him as a player on the ice, but I've never really heard anything negative about him off the ice. I view this scenario as Perry being a guy who did something shitty, but I don't necessarily view him as a shitty person because of it. He wasn't charged with anything, nothing criminal came of it, but I also don't necessarily believe legal implications are what define people as "good" or "bad", the law frequently gets things wrong too. But even "wrong" is a matter of debate. 

 

On the flip side, we have these young guys in the news with hockey Canada who may end up being charged with sexual assault. I'd have said the same thing about them prior to this, hadn't heard negative things, but sexual assault is clearly a more serious matter. Saying something appropriate versus doing something of that weight isn't the same, but I also recognize that both are negative things. 

 

I understand the argument that folks are defined by their actions, and I agree to an extent, but I also question where the line is. We all know folks who have done things they aren't proud of, things that your or I may not do, things that may have even been criminal, but most people aren't static. I also recognize that the line isn't black and white, and that it's likely different for everyone. Most of us probably take this sort of thing on a case by case basis, all scenarios aren't equal or the same. 

 

Principles, beliefs, ideals, and ideologies are complicated things, maybe for some more than others, but we don't live in a world of black and white, there's a lot of grey in-between. 

 

Hockey culture can absolutely be toxic, but how much of x or y makes a person toxic? 

 

This is a bit off topic, but it's where my head went. It's interesting to reflect upon. 

 

I never said Perry was a bad person FWIW. It's certainly quite likely that he's a (mostly, and hopefully like most of us) good person who did a bad thing. It happens. To all of us. We're human.

 

My entire point was that you don't have a contract terminated for "just flirting". That's ridiculous. Scott's comments excusing it as such are just another sign of the negative elements of "hockey culture" that need changing. 

[Coconuts]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

 

I never said Perry was a bad person FWIW. It's certainly quite likely that he's a (mostly, and hopefully like most of us) good person who did a bad thing. It happens. To all of us. We're human.

 

My entire point was that you don't have a contract terminated for "just flirting". That's ridiculous. Scott's comments excusing it as such are just another sign of the negative elements of "hockey culture" that need changing. 

 

I wasn't pointing fingers at you, don't get me wrong. I respect your takes. But yeah, hopefully just decent person who did bad thing. 

Edited January 24 by Coconuts

[Coconuts]

15 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I never said Perry was a bad person FWIW. It's certainly quite likely that he's a (mostly, and hopefully like most of us) good person who did a bad thing. It happens. To all of us. We're human.

 

My entire point was that you don't have a contract terminated for "just flirting". That's ridiculous. Scott's comments excusing it as such are just another sign of the negative elements of "hockey culture" that need changing. 

 

 

 

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeteyBOI]

On 1/21/2024 at 12:04 PM, Trebreh said:

Connor better hide his mom.

[PeteyBOI]

On 1/23/2024 at 2:05 PM, lionized27 said:

The Canucks aren't in the market for bottom 6 forewards. 

I love forewords, I agree we need our forewords at the the top

[The Lock]

So the way I see it:

 

1) There'd have to be a legitimate reasoning for the termination of Perry's contact with Chicago so obviously something happened.

2) I can't see Edmonton signing him without at least getting a feel for the gravity of the situation and how/if it would affect the Oilers if he signed.

 

Perry's reputation is no doubt tarnished; however, it's obviously not big enough to the point where other teams aren't willing to sign him.

[HKSR]

Just now, The Lock said:

So the way I see it:

 

1) There'd have to be a legitimate reasoning for the termination of Perry's contact with Chicago so obviously something happened.

2) I can't see Edmonton signing him without at least getting a feel for the gravity of the situation and how/if it would affect the Oilers if he signed.

 

Perry's reputation is no doubt tarnished; however, it's obviously not big enough to the point where other teams aren't willing to sign him.

The caveat to all this is that the Oilers also took on these 2 guys... thing is only 1 of them is good enough for the NHL:

1. Evander Kane

2. Jake Virtanen

[Theo5789]

4 minutes ago, The Lock said:

So the way I see it:

 

1) There'd have to be a legitimate reasoning for the termination of Perry's contact with Chicago so obviously something happened.

2) I can't see Edmonton signing him without at least getting a feel for the gravity of the situation and how/if it would affect the Oilers if he signed.

 

Perry's reputation is no doubt tarnished; however, it's obviously not big enough to the point where other teams aren't willing to sign him.

I mean look at all the team signing contracts for the players involved in the hockey Canada sexual assault case. Those teams must know what's going on behind the scenes there.

 

If teams can cover up whatever they can, they will if the players will help their team. And if those players get busted, they just terminate the contract or cut ties, no harm no foul on the club.

 

Chicago was rewarded with a 1st overall after what happened there. In fact the penalty was probably less severe than what Perry got. So I have no doubt in my mind that teams would sign players even if they know they've done bad stuff (or plead ignorance eg Mitchell Miller signing in Boston).

[Theo5789]

On 1/23/2024 at 2:01 PM, Miss Korea said:

Much better for him to go to Edmonton where the bottom six is widen open. 

There's a joke here with this quote and Perry. What could it be....

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Theo5789 said:

I mean look at all the team signing contracts for the players involved in the hockey Canada sexual assault case. Those teams must know what's going on behind the scenes there.

 

If teams can cover up whatever they can, they will if the players will help their team. And if those players get busted, they just terminate the contract or cut ties, no harm no foul on the club.

 

Chicago was rewarded with a 1st overall after what happened there. In fact the penalty was probably less severe than what Perry got. So I have no doubt in my mind that teams would sign players even if they know they've done bad stuff (or plead ignorance eg Mitchell Miller signing in Boston).

 

I don't really see the hockey Canada case as being the same to be honest. We're talking a case that was closed by 2019 and reopened in 2022. So what are teams supposed to do in between 2019 and 2022? Do the opposite of the courts and pretend they're guilty until proven innocent?