Devils team discussion (news, notes and speculation) - offseason part III

[NJDevs26]

rape is rape i don't care if the person at 18 went on to cure cancer they are still a rapist and should be charged as such.

This is where the holier than thou schtick jumps the shark…let’s for a second make the leap that silence = guilt…do we know he actually participated? Or did he just know about it after the fact and not squeal? As reprehensible as the latter is, it’s not quite on the same level as the former but either one’s gonna cause someone to go radio silent. There are different possible levels of guilt here, not saying I’d condone either but you can’t make the leap to silence means the guy’s a rapist either

 

[MartyOwns]

live look at the devils front office

 

[JrFischer54]

There is no "proper procedure" to get rid of him given everything we currently know. Whatever out clauses are in there for the Devils to terminate McLeod's contract have most certainly not been met merely because he has been publicly quiet about an ongoing investigation. Any termination of his contract at this point in time would be well outside of any "proper procedure".

I also didn't dispute that McLeod's agent fighting the termination would draw more interest to the case - but the absurd assertion you made that maybe they would just "not even fight it" and walk away from $1,000,000 (at least, given that a wrongful termination could also negatively impact future earnings).

So, what exactly would you be holding McCleod accountable for? What are you completely confident he has done to warrant getting his contract terminated?

It's funny how you think you can just ignore the legality of the actions you're recommending.

Your take on this issue is pure emotion and zero logic - thankfully well run organizations do not operate this way.



Are you accusing McLeod of being a rapist?

there you go missing words again lol did i say he was? also again i never said anything about terminating the contract there are ways for him to still be paid while not being on the roster. so i'm not sure why you are continually bringing that up.

 

[Camille the Eel]

rape is rape i don't care if the person at 18 went on to cure cancer they are still a rapist and should be charged as such.

Agreed. But charging him is not the Devils or the NHL’s responsibility. Investigating what happened and bringing criminal charges where appropriate is the responsibility of the police and the prosecutors and resolution of it is for the courts. We (the fans), the club and the league need to wait for those determinations, although the league is doing its own investigation, which is also not complete and published. That seems to be what’s happening.

We shouldn’t just assume he’s guilty of a class A felony nor put the burden on him, with a criminal investigation perhaps hanging over his head, to exculpate himself with a public statement.

I think this is actually being handled correctly by the club.

 

[JrFischer54]

This is where the holier than thou schtick jumps the shark…let’s for a second make the leap that silence = guilt…do we know he actually participated? Or did he just know about it after the fact and not squeal? As reprehensible as the latter is, it’s not quite on the same level as the former but either one’s gonna cause someone to go radio silent. There are different possible levels of guilt here, not saying I’d condone either but you can’t make the leap to silence means the guy’s a rapist either

i never said he was i was replying to what the previous poster said

 

[Cheddabombs]

Silly me, it’s my wife and kids and even the dogs that make fun of me.

What do the dogs do

 

[HBK27]

there you go missing words again lol did i say he was? also again i never said anything about terminating the contract there are ways for him to still be paid while not being on the roster. so i'm not sure why you are continually bringing that up.

That's why I asked.

So, what is it you think McLeod is guilty of to justify tossing him off the roster?

 

[NJDevs26]

What do the dogs do

Think he posted a picture once

 

[Homedresser]

there you go missing words again lol did i say he was? also again i never said anything about terminating the contract there are ways for him to still be paid while not being on the roster. so i'm not sure why you are continually bringing that up.

the ONLY way he should have been invited to camp is if he sat down with Devils mgt and specifically went over every single detail of what he knows and did. With that information, Devils mgt needed to have a seperate conversation amongst themselves to determine whether or not they believe him. If they believe he was honest AND is innocent then invite him. If they have reason for concern about his truthfulness OR that he actually did something illegal he should not have been invited. Either way, by inviting him to camp Devils mgt has said they support him. To be clear to the reading comprehension challenged on here, I am only speaking about the invite. I am not saying release him, I am saying just don't bring him to camp. It's a bad look if they're wrong.

 

[tailfins]

the ONLY way he should have been invited to camp is if he sat down with Devils mgt and specifically went over every single detail of what he knows and did. With that information, Devils mgt needed to have a seperate conversation amongst themselves to determine whether or not they believe him. If they believe he was honest AND is innocent then invite him. If they have reason for concern about his truthfulness OR that he actually did something illegal he should not have been invited. Either way, by inviting him to camp Devils mgt has said they support him. To be clear to the reading comprehension challenged on here, I am only speaking about the invite. I am not saying release him, I am saying just don't bring him to camp. It's a bad look if they're wrong.

Do players signed to contracts get "invited" to camp? Or are they just required to report? It would be surprising to me that someone under contract would need an invite.

 

[Homedresser]

Do players signed to contracts get "invited" to camp? Or are they just required to report? It would be surprising to me that someone under contract would need an invite.

In this instance, I would think the conversation took place and based on what was said and believed he was told to proceed to camp. The key is that by coming to camp, the Devils have said they have met with him and believe him to be innocent of ALL things and are willing to accept responsibilty for their actions if he's found to have done something illegal. Because if something comes out and he's on their roster I would consider that a fireable offense for Fitz and whoever else said it was ok to have him come in. And to go further, i would never let any of them work in the game again. At this point, with everything that has gone on lately with hockey, if you allow a sexual predator to be on your roster you should never work in the game again. So my question is, why would the Devils ever take on this risk for any player?

 

[RangerDoggo]

Personally, I think McLeod should be kept around for the moment, with the expectation that he'll be seeing a lot of the press box if things get legally ugly for him. Especially if he doesn't have much to offer other than faceoffs.

 

[Homedresser]

Personally, I think McLeod should be kept around for the moment, with the expectation that he'll be seeing a lot of the press box if things get legally ugly for him. Especially if he doesn't have much to offer other than faceoffs.

So if he's found to have been a part of something illegal you think he should be scratched? Am I reading that right?

 

[HBK27]

In this instance, I would think the conversation took place and based on what was said and believed he was told to proceed to camp. The key is that by coming to camp, the Devils have said they have met with him and believe him to be innocent of ALL things and are willing to accept responsibilty for their actions if he's found to have done something illegal. Because if something comes out and he's on their roster I would consider that a fireable offense for Fitz and whoever else said it was ok to have him come in. And to go further, i would never let any of them work in the game again. At this point, with everything that has gone on lately with hockey, if you allow a sexual predator to be on your roster you should never work in the game again. So my question is, why would the Devils ever take on this risk for any player?

There's absolutely no burden of responsibility on Fitzgerald and the Devils management by simply having McLeod on the team while there's an ongoing investigation, especially considering no charges were filed following the initial investigation. Him being on the roster does not mean that management believes he is innocent of "ALL things", whatever the hell that may mean.

It's also insane to think that they should somehow be blackballed from the league if the ongoing investigation does eventually point to wrongdoing on McLeod's part.

I just can't get on board with this notion that they should cut bait from him "just in case" something comes out down the line as you are suggesting. That's not the way this should work.

 

[My3Sons]

there wouldn't be any reason to fight anything if the devils followed proper procedure to get rid of him. then fighting such a move would only draw more interest in the case. is that better for you?

thats what makes this country great i could say i would do things my way and hold people accountable you can do things your ways doing legal jujitsu for someone involved in a questionable event. but hey whatevers you do you.

btw all i did was ask him to make a statement saying he wasn't involved i don't think thats asking too much of a person that is innocent.

Do you realize that you just reduced the US Constitution to “legal jujitsu” and did so in a way that seemingly suggested those protections are inappropriate?

 

[Homedresser]

There's absolutely no burden of responsibility on Fitzgerald and the Devils management by simply having McLeod on the team while there's an ongoing investigation, especially considering no charges were filed following the initial investigation. Him being on the roster does not mean that management believes he is innocent of "ALL things", whatever the hell that may mean.

It's also insane to think that they should somehow be blackballed from the league if the ongoing investigation does eventually point to wrongdoing on McLeod's part.

I just can't get on board with this notion that they should cut bait from him "just in case" something comes out down the line as you are suggesting. That's not the way this should work.

I never said he should have been cut. I went out of my way to make that clear. You are being ignorant if you think Devils management should not and will not be held responsible for having a sexual predator on their roster knowing full well there is an ongoing investigation into his actions. So if a coach and gm allows a player to continue to play while being investigated for sexual assault and said player is found to have actually done it, they should be allowed to keep their jobs? That's why Fitz's career is on the line. If he rosters and plays him and he did it Fitz & Ruff are done as well as sanctions for the team. AGAIN, honor his contract and pay him until this is completely over. You just can't put him on the ice.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Forget all the other stuff for a moment, the Devils should move on from McLeod from a hockey standpoint alone. He’s an anchor.

 

[Bleedred]

Personally, I think McLeod should be kept around for the moment, with the expectation that he'll be seeing a lot of the press box if things get legally ugly for him. Especially if he doesn't have much to offer other than faceoffs.

So if he's found to have been a part of something illegal you think he should be scratched? Am I reading that right?

I don't think he'll be with the team (or pro hockey in North America) anymore. They'll do away with him faster than you can say FOGO.

I think it's a little early to start packing his bags and tossing a guilty verdict at him.

And I don't wanna defend him more than that, as I'll really feel sick to my stomach that I said anything to even half defend the guy, should it come out that he was in fact a participant. So that's all I'll say for now.

I do think expecting him to be banished from the team right now is jumping the gun.

 

[JrFischer54]

Do you realize that you just reduced the US Constitution to “legal jujitsu” and did so in a way that seemingly suggested those protections are inappropriate?

i mean i did say he has every right not to speak. so i'm not sure how i'm taking away his rights. he can do whatever he wants. and i can think however i want of his action or inaction just like you can think however you want from him not speaking if you think hes innocent and him not speaking is perfectly fine good for you. i think any reasonable person would think it makes him look bad and guilty but hey thats just me


again for the last time i can only say how i would act in this situation if i'm him and i didn't do anything i would 1000000000000000000000000000000% be saying that damned what my rights are what my lawyers say i dont care i would be telling everyone and anyone i didn't do this.

now if you are in that same situation and innocent would you remain silent? maybe you would i dunno but its also fair game then for the public to assume you could in fact be guilty.

 

[HBK27]

I never said he should have been cut. I went out of my way to make that clear. You are being ignorant if you think Devils management should not and will not be held responsible for having a sexual predator on their roster knowing full well there is an ongoing investigation into his actions. So if a coach and gm allows a player to continue to play while being investigated for sexual assault and said player is found to have actually done it, they should be allowed to keep their jobs? That's why Fitz's career is on the line. If he rosters and plays him and he did it Fitz & Ruff are done as well as sanctions for the team. AGAIN, honor his contract and pay him until this is completely over. You just can't put him on the ice.

Yes, they absolutely should.

There was already a police investigation in 2018 that concluded without any charges in February 2019. Team Canada is reopening their previous investigation now that the alleged assault has become public.

You're suggesting they take action before all the facts are known.

I would assume that Fitz and/or management has spoken with McCleod about this issue, but what are they going to do if he denies involvement? Or if he says he was involved in some way, but that everything was consensual?

Banishing him from the team, even if he is paid out, sends a message of a presumption of guilt from the team. Then what do you do if he's cleared or nothing against him stems from this investigation? You've already thrown your player under the bus, so that relationship is done and I doubt other players are crazy about the team taking that type of action before the investigation concludes. Is any accusation of misconduct now enough to get players banished from the team before it can be investigated?

 

[Nubmer6]

Do you realize that you just reduced the US Constitution to “legal jujitsu” and did so in a way that seemingly suggested those protections are inappropriate?

The Constitution does not have hold much weight in the court of public opinion.

 

[Bleedred]

Forget all the other stuff for a moment, the Devils should move on from McLeod from a hockey standpoint alone. He’s an anchor.

I don't like him at all as a hockey player and I hate that he's a complete bust, but there's MUCH worse players we can have and have had. This is the same organization that trotted Rod Pelley out there for over 215 NHL games for parts of 5 seasons.

As a 4th line center he's absolutely not an anchor, but if he's due a significant raise from what he's making after this year, that's when I'd say he's an anchor. I have no interest in retaining him if he's making much more than $1.5 million a year on his next deal. We can easily find a replacement at that cost or cheaper.

But right now he's a decent 4th line center/4th line player capable of 20 points, who is being paid under a million a year. I say he's a wash at worst and not an anchor.

Now, if Ruff or Brunette really start to get mentally erect and think he has some sort of ''Untapped potential'' and start giving him more of an offensive role and more time on the power play, then I'd say he's an anchor, because I don't think there's much more potential left to be tapped out of him that he hasn't already shown. And we have several centers and wingers already ahead of him that he shouldn't really have to play more than a 4th line role unless there's a ton of injuries. Even last year he was rarely used above the 4th line, although his minutes played (since he was used as a ''Shutdown'' guy in some situations) was a bit higher than 4th line.

 

[Bleedred]

I really do wish we could find out who these guys are, because NONE of them should be on the ice this year.

No matter who they are.

 

[JrFischer54]

I really do wish we could find out who these guys are, because NONE of them should be on the ice this year.

No matter who they are.

i've said it before and say it again players on that team absolutely know what did and didn't happen. noway does something like that happen without word spreading. so while its nice that people are coming out denying involvement years later they didn't seem to have problem keeping quiet for years.

 

[Homedresser]

Yes, they absolutely should.

There was already a police investigation in 2018 that concluded without any charges in February 2019. Team Canada is reopening their previous investigation now that the alleged assault has become public.

You're suggesting they take action before all the facts are known.

I would assume that Fitz and/or management has spoken with McCleod about this issue, but what are they going to do if he denies involvement? Or if he says he was involved in some way, but that everything was consensual?

Banishing him from the team, even if he is paid out, sends a message of a presumption of guilt from the team. Then what do you do if he's cleared or nothing against him stems from this investigation? You've already thrown your player under the bus, so that relationship is done and I doubt other players are crazy about the team taking that type of action before the investigation concludes. Is any accusation of misconduct now enough to get players banished from the team before it can be investigated?

The team needs to look out for it's best interests. You think it's a good thing if he scores a hatty, makes espn goal of the week, gets added to pre game videos and such all the while being investigated for TWO instances of sexual assualt and then is found to have done it? C'mon, i know people can be stubborn but this is just common sense. How's it look when a female reporter has to interview him post game and he is under investigation. Imagine how that reporter feels if he's found to have done it twice? No one said don't pay him just can't run the risk of having to promote him either. Imagine the backlash if he has a significant impact on the ice and team has to promote him and then is found to have done it.... TWICE?