News Article: Shane Pinto suspended 41 games for violating gambling rules

[Ice-Tray]

Well you're right,

We don't know what Pinto wanted, we only have insiders like Friedman saying he started by asking for 2.5

We don't know what move was to be made, we only had the speculation from insiders that it was going to be steep. I think it was Garrioch during one intermission saying flyers wanted Greig, prior to that it was apparently a 1st or Boucher

Im not sure we actually know when the sens were informed, my understanding was close to the start of camp, but we have insiders like Freidman talking about the offers right up to and into camp, so if the reporting that the Sens were informed to rescind all offers when they were advised of the investigation is true, then it suggests we didn't know early in the summer.

I don't think the situation becomes moot, I think we all agree that the team is evaluating Dorion and whether they'll be keeping him on going forward or replacing him. It only seems logical that his handling of the situation is relevant in that decision regardless of whether the suspension saved him from himself, or whether he handled the situation as best as possible given the circumstances.

It interesting that you claim Nichols views everything from the same lens, I don't necessarily disagree, but you're doing the same, viewing things from the opposite lens. Nothing wrong with different perspectives. Nichols makes some good points, and some bad ones. In fact, his point that the suspension doesn't change the fact that Dorion put himself in a tight position wrt the cap is one that Mendes also made, but Mendes doesn't get hated on for making that same point.

I will agree that Nichols appeals to fans that are unhappy with management, I think the appeal is a bit broader than that and includes those looking for diverse perspectives instead of just seeking out one side of the story, but he certainly won't appeal to those who are only seeking sunshine and rainbows.

No doubt. I’m a Sens fan and have never claimed to be unbiased. I’m very much biased towards my team, its players, its draft picks, etc, I think that’s kind of normal for sports fans in general.

I don’t write articles online about the Sens. I do often have my opinions criticized in here though, which is fair game, and see no reason why GN shouldn’t be party to the same types of responses towards his published opinions.

Personally I think he’s extremely negative in general towards the team and in this instance has gone out of his way to try and spin that the situation as still some sort of management f*** up anyways. It doesn’t take a fan with rainbows and sunshine to see through that argument.

I guess I don’t have much time for negative people.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

And, again, we don't know what the natural resolution to the issue would have been because we never got there. Discussing hypotheticals is fine, criticizing a very narrow set of hypotheticals is not discussion. It's rage bait for the same people who keep posting his shit on this site and expecting thoughtful and engaging discussion to break out around it. It's not the intent of the subject matter.

Bullshit. He makes his points . You can isolate points you don't like, say so, and discuss those if you like rather than blanketly dismissing his work. I am sure you can find content in his article you can agree with and disagree with. Plenty there for a healthy debate. No one is posting this a gospel to live by lol.
If you take it as rage bait that is totally on you and/or narrow minded people that do not want to look at aspects of what is happening from different views. He has a bit of a rep granted but he is not Satan. He is often informative and digs a little deeper and is more factual than the long time sports writer we are blessed to have cover the Senators.

 

[Micklebot]

No doubt. I’m a Sens fan and have never claimed to be unbiased. I’m very much biased towards my team, its players, its draft picks, etc, I think that’s kind of normal for sports fans in general.

I don’t write articles online about the Sens. I do often have my opinions criticized in here though, which is fair game, and see no reason why GN shouldn’t be party to the same types of responses towards his published opinions.

Personally I think he’s extremely negative in general towards the team and in this instance has gone out of his way to try and spin that the situation as still some sort of management f*** up anyways. It doesn’t take a fan with rainbows and sunshine to see through that argument.

I guess I don’t have much time for negative people.

Mendes, known spinster and for his extreme negative takes, essentially made the same point as Nichols, stating "Ottawa is still wearing salary-cap handcuffs — a situation that has nothing to do with Pinto’s gambling suspension. Dorion has been given some time, but he hasn’t created any extra salary-cap room. He shouldn’t be doing any victory laps for unexpectedly inheriting a peculiar situation that came out of left field."

 

[Ice-Tray]

The criticism is to the root cause of the situation, he put us in a bind. The end result is yet to be determined, does that mean there is no valid way to criticize him for his actions up until then?

Like I said, Nichols is hardly the only person who criticized Dorion wrt the handling of the situation. Mainstream media did as well. It was apparent that we didn't have a lot of leverage when it came to making space for Pinto, and that leverage got smaller and smaller the longer things dragged on.

This is the nature of sports coverage.

It’s no more of a bind than any other team that goes over the cap in the off season.

Friedman didn’t know shit about what’s going on so take his contract ask with a grain of salt.

Its possible we could have used waivers and made enough space for a contract he would sign.

The point isn’t that he can’t be super negative, present hypotheticals and treat them like a punching bag, it’s that it’s reasonable to criticize him for it when he does it.

 

[BankStreetParade]

The criticism is to the root cause of the situation, he put us in a bind. The end result is yet to be determined, does that mean there is no valid way to criticize him for his actions up until then?

Like I said, Nichols is hardly the only person who criticized Dorion wrt the handling of the situation. Mainstream media did as well. It was apparent that we didn't have a lot of leverage when it came to making space for Pinto, and that leverage got smaller and smaller the longer things dragged on.

This is the nature of sports coverage.

Based on what? Speculation? Oh Philadelphia was asking for Greig or a 1st to take on Joseph? Ok. So what? An ask is not a formal trade agreement. Actually, rarely do the prices teams publicly demand seem to materialize. I could make a drawing and ask $500 million for it. What does that actually mean?

Sure, these guys are plugged in but they're also in the headline generating business. They're in the business of getting eyeballs, traffic, views and clicks. Not everything they "report" is gospel to be taken at face value. And just because a team is asking for something doesn't mean they're going to get it.

We don't even know that the team was actually unloading Joseph. Maybe they were thinking of trading Brannstrom for a draft pick? Maybe Batherson's potential involvement in the hockey canada thing is a concern for them and they're going to move him? Maybe Kubalik is the odd man out? Maybe Forsberg is not needed at $2.75M if they can find a cheaper backup?

 

[Ice-Tray]

Mendes, known spinster and for his extreme negative takes, essentially made the same point as Nichols, stating "Ottawa is still wearing salary-cap handcuffs — a situation that has nothing to do with Pinto’s gambling suspension. Dorion has been given some time, but he hasn’t created any extra salary-cap room. He shouldn’t be doing any victory laps for unexpectedly inheriting a peculiar situation that came out of left field."

Sure and it’s dumb because we absolutely don’t know if there is a trade sitting there waiting.

Given what we know it’s even more of a dumb take given that he will likely command a prorated minimum contract now, and we have injuries.

All in all it’s just pointless negativity about a situation that could have happened, but didn’t, and a potential situation that also isn’t likely to unfold.

Some people like it, some people don’t. Some in here are critical of these types of positions and some people like them. Is what it is.

 

[Micklebot]

It’s no more of a bind than any other team that goes over the cap in the off season.

Every other team has managed to get themselves out of their bind before the start of camp, we didn't manage to sign Pinto and had to play a man short to start the season. Seems like maybe our bind was a little worse than average...

Friedman didn’t know shit about what’s going on so take his contract ask with a grain of salt.

Didn't know shit about what? The negotiations? or the suspension? Any time you get insider scoops you need to take it with a grain of salt, but he's got a strong track record. I think being completely dismissive of his reporting is probably not getting you closer to the truth.

Its possible we could have used waivers and made enough space for a contract he would sign.

eh, we could have waived Joseph and a forward and gotten close to what the rumoured deal they were close to was, but unless it was Brannstrom I think we fell short, especially given Norris wasn't ready. Even then, it leaves zero cap space for callups.

The point isn’t that he can’t be super negative, present hypotheticals and treat them like a punching bag, it’s that it’s reasonable to criticize him for it when he does it.

You can criticize him all you want, just be equally prepared to defend that criticism.

 

[Big Muddy]

Except we don’t know that we would have had to move anyone to make space because we don’t know what Pinto actually was asking for.

Tarasenko was signed July 27th to $5 m X 1 year. If Pinto was the priority, then get Pinto done first.

A player can be a priority to a team without coalescing to every demand they make, right? So in your interpretation, should all other business stop because the team has a player whose contract demands, despite little bargaining power, are not in line with theirs?

Depends on the priorities. Is the winger on a (probably more expensive) one-year deal a higher priority than the young center that could be with the organization multiple years?

That's not up to me to decide, but it would be a Dorion that would need to make the decision.

Maybe there's a pattern here? Dorion went for the short term winger in Debrincat versus the 7th overall pick. Dorion went for another expensive winger in Tarasenko with just one year of term. Short term deals seem to have taken priority over long term it would appear.

Looks like Dorion rolled the dice twice.

 

[Micklebot]

Based on what? Speculation? Oh Philadelphia was asking for Greig or a 1st to take on Joseph? Ok. So what? An ask is not a formal trade agreement. Actually, rarely do the prices teams publicly demand seem to materialize. I could make a drawing and ask $500 million for it. What does that actually mean?

Sure, these guys are plugged in but they're also in the headline generating business. They're in the business of getting eyeballs, traffic, views and clicks. Not everything they "report" is gospel to be taken at face value. And just because a team is asking for something doesn't mean they're going to get it.

We don't even know that the team was actually unloading Joseph. Maybe they were thinking of trading Brannstrom for a draft pick? Maybe Batherson's potential involvement in the hockey canada thing is a concern for them and they're going to move him? Maybe Kubalik is the odd man out? Maybe Forsberg is not needed at $2.75M if they can find a cheaper backup?

Come on now, if you can't acknowledge we didn't have a lot of leverage when it came to moving Joseph to make room, then I don't think you're being reasonable.

It's easy to be critical of Nichols for being overly negative, but when you start questioning things like whether it would be tough to move Joseph, it's you who's earned criticism.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Every other team has managed to get themselves out of their bind before the start of camp, we didn't manage to sign Pinto and had to play a man short to start the season. Seems like maybe our bind was a little worse than average...

Didn't know shit about what? The negotiations? or the suspension? Any time you get insider scoops you need to take it with a grain of salt, but he's got a strong track record. I think being completely dismissive of his reporting is probably not getting you closer to the truth.

eh, we could have waived Joseph and a forward and gotten close to what the rumoured deal they were close to was, but unless it was Brannstrom I think we fell short, especially given Norris wasn't ready. Even then, it leaves zero cap space for callups.

You can criticize him all you want, just be equally prepared to defend that criticism.

I’m being completely dismissive of all the reports surrounding Pinto because nobody in the media knew what was going on at all. We had contract rumours all the way past the time where we know that they weren’t seriously negotiating deals.

We obviously couldn’t sort out Pinto before camp, nor did we know how long he would be suspended for, so that kinda puts the team in a holding pattern no? We played one game short handed. Ideal? No, but not some sort of bind. We have iced the best team of players we have available.

Uhm, you’re doing that tangent thing again. Have I mentioned anywhere that I’m troubled by defending my position? I think I have defended my criticism just fine, just like I defend myself when I am criticized. This is a non issue.

As I said, some like that kind of thinking, others don’t.

 

[Big Muddy]

Based on what? Speculation? Oh Philadelphia was asking for Greig or a 1st to take on Joseph? Ok. So what? An ask is not a formal trade agreement. Actually, rarely do the prices teams publicly demand seem to materialize. I could make a drawing and ask $500 million for it. What does that actually mean?

Sure, these guys are plugged in but they're also in the headline generating business. They're in the business of getting eyeballs, traffic, views and clicks. Not everything they "report" is gospel to be taken at face value. And just because a team is asking for something doesn't mean they're going to get it.

We don't even know that the team was actually unloading Joseph. Maybe they were thinking of trading Brannstrom for a draft pick? Maybe Batherson's potential involvement in the hockey canada thing is a concern for them and they're going to move him? Maybe Kubalik is the odd man out? Maybe Forsberg is not needed at $2.75M if they can find a cheaper backup?

You're getting hyper focused on just the Pinto situation. There are other trades that were made during the summer.

It sure seems like the order that player decisions were made is where the real scrutiny is coming from, not the details of just Pinto situation. It's up to Dorion to decide what the priorities are. There were a bunch of other players signed (including Tarasenko @ $5 m) this summer before the Pinto situation was resolved.

Risk and reward as per always I suppose. Dorion rolled the dice.

 

[BankStreetParade]

Tarasenko was signed July 27th to $5 m X 1 year. If Pinto was the priority, then get Pinto done first.

Depends on the priorities. Is the winger on a (probably more expensive) one-year deal a higher priority than the young center that could be with the organization multiple years?

That's not up to me to decide, but it would be a Dorion that would need to make the decision.

Maybe there's a pattern here? Dorion went for the short term winger in Debrincat versus the 7th overall pick. Dorion went for another expensive winger in Tarasenko with just one year of term. Short term deals seem to have taken priority over long term it would appear.

Looks like Dorion rolled the dice twice.

I'm asking for your interpretation. Pinto is your priority, in this scenario.

Do you stop all other roster business for the team while you work on a deal?
And do you coalesce to their demands to get the deal done?

 

[Big Muddy]

I’m being completely dismissive of all the reports surrounding Pinto because nobody in the media knew what was going on at all. We had contract rumours all the way past the time where we know that they weren’t seriously negotiating deals.

We obviously couldn’t sort out Pinto before camp, nor did we know how long he would be suspended for, so that kinda puts the team in a holding pattern no?

The Pinto situation is just one of the things that transpired this summer. There were other trades that occurred that Dorion committed to that consumed cap space (without mentioning the $5 m dead cap here), not just Pinto which some seem ultra focused on.

Dorion decides on the priority of who gets signed first, then which other players contracts happen later. He decided to commit $5 m (for one year) to Tarasenko without the Pinto situation being resolved. Not to mention that there were other signings & transactions besides Tarasenko that occurred this summer as well.

 

[BankStreetParade]

Come on now, if you can't acknowledge we didn't have a lot of leverage when it came to moving Joseph to make room, then I don't think you're being reasonable.

It's easy to be critical of Nichols for being overly negative, but when you start questioning things like whether it would be tough to move Joseph, it's you who's earned criticism.

So Joseph was the only move we could make?

 

[Big Muddy]

I'm asking for your interpretation. Pinto is your priority, in this scenario.

Do you stop all other roster business for the team while you work on a deal?
And do you coalesce to their demands to get the deal done?

If you want to play that game, then I'll ask for your priority then. If you were the GM and signed Tarasenko to $5 m after also committing to Korpisalo, etc., would you not recognize the risk that perhaps Pinto won't be able to get signed?

Might as well ask if some of the other players signed like MacEwan would be a higher priority signing as well? There were multiple players signed before the Pinto situation was resolved.

I always prioritize the long term, but it makes no difference as I am not the GM.

Seems like you ignored the paragraph about the trend (big fish winger) as well.

 

[Micklebot]

So Joseph was the only move we could make?

The others all are less desirable from an on ice perspective, pick your poison I guess, but no matter what move we could have made, most other teams didn't have cap space to not send back salary because we waited so long. Other teams also knew that we were the ones who had a deadline and ramifications if we didn't meet it. It's very obvious we were operating from a position that lacked leverage no matter who we tried to move, but I guess some people are willing to ignore that so that they can complain that the mean blogger was too negative...

 

[BankStreetParade]

If you want to play that game, then I'll ask for your priority then. If you were the GM and signed Tarasenko to $5 m after also committing to Korpisalo, etc., would you not recognize the risk that perhaps Pinto won't be able to get signed? Might as well ask if some of the other players signed like MacEwan would be a higher priority signing as well? There were multiple players signed before the Pinto situation was resolved.

I always prioritize the long term, but it makes no difference as I am not the GM.

It's not a trick question so I'm not sure why you won't answer it. You're saying Pinto was the priority and they needed "to get Pinto done first".

Does that mean you don't sign anyone else until Pinto's contract is sorted out?
And does it mean if the negotiation isn't straightforward and simple that you give in to their demand to get it done so you can move forward with other business?

It's 2 yes or no questions, I don't need a thesis defense.

 

[Big Muddy]

It's not a trick question so I'm not sure why you won't answer it. You're saying Pinto was the priority and they needed "to get Pinto done first".

Does that mean you don't sign anyone else until Pinto's contract is sorted out?
And does it mean if the negotiation isn't straightforward and simple that you give in to their demand to get it done so you can move forward with other business?

It's 2 yes or no questions, I don't need a thesis defense.

So, why are you not answering my questions then? Do you think you're the only person that can ask questions? Do you think people should play your dumb games?

Do you think a GM (or you given you want to play this game) should have a list of priorities of what is most important and get those done first? There were multiple signings that committed cap this summer: Tarasenko, Brannstrom, MacEwan.

It's just one question with a yes or no answer. I don't need a thesis.

 

[BankStreetParade]

The others all are less desirable from an on ice perspective, pick your poison I guess, but no matter what move we could have made, most other teams didn't have cap space to not send back salary because we waited so long. Other teams also knew that we were the ones who had a deadline and ramifications if we didn't meet it. It's very obvious we were operating from a position that lacked leverage no matter who we tried to move, but I guess some people are willing to ignore that so that they can complain that the mean blogger was too negative...

Trading Kubalik for a 4th round pick wouldn't have worked, right? Trading Brannstrom for a 2nd round pick wouldn't have worked, right?

So, the only discussion we can have is around this one narrow hypothetical and nothing else is on the table? Remind me again what actually constitutes "discussion" on this forum? Seems like the only "discussions" eligible for engagement range from subjects that are mildly negative to overly negative.

Oh, here's an idea! Why don't you guys go comment on Nichols' substack if you love this "discussion" so much? Go support him. Subscribe to his newsletter and help him with your comments, views and contributions. It's clear this is what you want to talk about. And that's fine. Don't do it here though. Do it there where he can actually reap some reward for his efforts.

 

[BankStreetParade]

So, why are you not answering my questions then? Do you think you're the only person that can ask questions? Do you think people should play your dumb games?

Do you think a GM (or you given you want to play this game) should have a list of priorities of what is most important and get those done first? There were multiple signings that committed cap this summer: Tarasenko, Brannstrom, MacEwan.

I know what my opinion is, thanks. You can review my post history if you want to know where I stand on many subjects.

But I love how you guys blow a f***ing gasket anytime someone asks you a question that even remotely pressures you to confront an uncomfortable truth about your opinion.

We can skip the rest of this discussion since it seems to agitate you so much.

 

[Big Muddy]

Odd to see other players being mentioned as options, like Brannstrom.

Brannstrom $2 m + MacEwan 775 k = $2.75 m.

Hmm, what could we have done with that $2.75 m?

 

[Larionov]

When early January arrives, and we have a better sense of our cap space, we can make a decision on what to offer Pinto. I think both Pinto and his agent know that at this point, they have to largely take what Ottawa offers, and try to make it up in the summer. From the team's perspective, though, if you have a bit of space to give him just a little extra sugar, I think you do it just to cement the loyalty. We are told that Pinto is appreciative of how Ottawa handled this situation, not leaking out a bunch of details and making a very supportive statement. If we can afford to give him, say, a pro-rated $1.5 million deal instead of a million, it's a gesture that says they care about the player and want him around long term. If you can afford to be a bit generous to a player who you hope will be in your middle six for your competitive window, I say you do it...

 

[Big Muddy]

I know what my opinion is, thanks. You can review my post history if you want to know where I stand on many subjects.

But I love how you guys blow a f***ing gasket anytime someone asks you a question that even remotely pressures you to confront an uncomfortable truth about your opinion.

We can skip the rest of this discussion since it seems to agitate you so much.

Blow a gasket. Sure LOL. Is that all you have now: exaggerated, straw-man & hyperbole? You are just getting worked up because somebody else is turning it around and playing the same game you somehow think others should play. Nice try.

 

[Micklebot]

Trading Kubalik for a 4th round pick wouldn't have worked, right? Trading Brannstrom for a 2nd round pick wouldn't have worked, right?

I'm not sure the going rate for an offensive dman that doesn't put up pts and averaged 16 mins a night is a 2nd, could we find a team that would give us a 2nd for Brannstrom that late in the game, not a lot of teams were looking for a bottom pair Dman signed for 2 mil, even fewer that had room for 2 mil. Even then, we clearly need depth on D, is moving on from Brannstrom the right move on ice? Kubalik at 2.5 for one year offers a similar issue, not a lot of teams with the space to incorporate him, fewer that have the need to add a top 9 scoring winger. Perhaps we could move Brannstrom or Kubalik, the problem is that they are part of our best 12 forwards and 6 D, so we're making the team worse moving them, and teams know we have to move them, we were clearly operating without a lot of leverage.

So, the only discussion we can have is around this one narrow hypothetical and nothing else is on the table? Remind me again what actually constitutes "discussion" on this forum? Seems like the only "discussions" eligible for engagement range from subjects that are mildly negative to overly negative.

I never said nothing else was on the table, but anyone being honest with themselves can admit we were not dealing from a position of strength. It was widely reported Joseph was the one on the block, but yes, there were other options, none of which were without their own cons.

Oh, here's an idea! Why don't you guys go comment on Nichols' substack if you love this "discussion" so much? Go support him. Subscribe to his newsletter and help him with your comments, views and contributions. It's clear this is what you want to talk about. And that's fine. Don't do it here though. Do it there where he can actually reap some reward for his efforts.

Oh... so you feel you are the arbiter of what can or should be discussed here? I wasn't aware you were putting your hat in the ring to be a mod, cool... Here's the thing, someone posted the article, just like many other articles get posted, to spur discussion from different view points, nothing more nothing less. So long as people are respectful of the site rules, all viewpoints are welcome, even negative ones... so maybe if discussing varied viewpoints upsets you it's you that should not do it here.

 

[BankStreetParade]

Blow a gasket. Sure LOL. Is that all you have now: exaggerated, straw-man & hyperbole? You are just getting worked up because somebody else is turning it around and playing the same game you somehow think others should play. Nice try.

So asking you questions about your opinion is playing games? Wow. And you think I'm the one getting worked up...good Lord, you need to get a grip man.