More Hockeybuzz Crap

[Bmwolf21]

From Andy Strickland's blog at hockeybuzz.com:

Did anyone catch the interview with Ottawa Sun hockey writer Bruce Garrioch during the second intermission of last Saturday?s game between the Senators and the Buffalo Sabres?

 

I have never seen a more ridiculous display of homerism from this Buffalo studio host Kevin Sylvester. Garrioch was asked to share his thoughts on the Chris Drury hit and this Sylvester guy got all upset with Garroich who gave an honest answer. The two obviously disagreed which is fine but Sylvester came across like an amateur.

 

He later asked Garrioch what his thoughts were regarding the letter Sabres Owner Thomas Golisano wrote to NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. When Garrioch responded by saying he thought Golisano was taking whining to a new level Sylvester interrupted and said were going to have to end this interview, you can?t come on here and talk about the Sabres Owner that way!

 

As a broadcaster I though the interview was handled poorly and completely unprofessional. The lack of objectivity and respect shown to his guest was nothing but a pitiful display of journalism.

Ummm...did anyone clue Strickland into the fact that Garrioch was the "objective journalist" who used the term "whining to a new level" while Sylvester and co. are Sabres' game night employees, and not journalists?

 

Seriously, between theis crap and Eklund, is there any reason why I should keep wasting time looking at that site?

/rant

 

Thoughts on Strickland's piece?

[Corp000085]

Wonder if the owners of the maple leafs will take whining to the next level?

[shrader]

Wonder if the owners of the maple leafs will take whining to the next level?

 

My thoughts exactly. Since it was a Leafs player, I bet the league does step up finally and introduce some new rules for next season. What they need to do is go with a contact to the head penalty like they call in college hockey. Any impact to the head at all is called. Is it going to take a death before they make these changes?

[smith]

My thoughts exactly. Since it was a Leafs player, I bet the league does step up finally and introduce some new rules for next season. What they need to do is go with a contact to the head penalty like they call in college hockey. Any impact to the head at all is called. Is it going to take a death before they make these changes?

 

i would NEVER wish that hit upon anyone...and i hope kaberle is alright. BUT. my afterthought to the hit was almost relief that something will happen now. it'll take a "big market" team's organization to do ANYTHING to fix it. A letter from Tom G and an interview wth Kevin Sylvester obviously aren't gonna cut it.

[Stoner]

From Andy Strickland's blog at hockeybuzz.com:

 

Ummm...did anyone clue Strickland into the fact that Garrioch was the "objective journalist" who used the term "whining to a new level" while Sylvester and co. are Sabres' game night employees, and not journalists?

 

Seriously, between theis crap and Eklund, is there any reason why I should keep wasting time looking at that site?

/rant

 

Thoughts on Strickland's piece?

 

BM, come on. It was amateur hour on MSG that night. You don't invite someone from Ottawa on your show and then cut him off when the opinion is against the Sabres' company line.

 

I think we've gone over this before. There are no objective sports journalists. Not a one. Even a guy like Tim Graham of the News, who plays it very straight in his stories, will give his opinions on the Sabres away from the paper.

[shrader]

BM, come on. It was amateur hour on MSG that night. You don't invite someone from Ottawa on your show and then cut him off when the opinion is against the Sabres' company line.

 

I think we've gone over this before. There are no objective sports journalists. Not a one. Even a guy like Tim Graham of the News, who plays it very straight in his stories, will give his opinions on the Sabres away from the paper.

 

Sylvester was right, but it was amateur hour because he didn't say the right thing. All he had to do was say that Golisano is looking leaguewide and not just at that Drury hit and he would've been dead on. It sounded like that's what he wanted to say, but he reacted too quickly to actually say it.

[Bmwolf21]

BM, come on. It was amateur hour on MSG that night. You don't invite someone from Ottawa on your show and then cut him off when the opinion is against the Sabres' company line.

 

I think we've gone over this before. There are no objective sports journalists. Not a one. Even a guy like Tim Graham of the News, who plays it very straight in his stories, will give his opinions on the Sabres away from the paper.

Nope, sorry - not buying it. This isn't about whether Garrioch is entitled to give his opinion on the hit or the letter - it is the fact that for some reason, Sylvester & co. are taking all the heat here and Garrioch seems to be skating off scot-free. Watching the interview again, it seems the guys had a good debate going about the legality of the hit until Garrioch started taking unprovoked shots at Golisano for writing the letter, and making ridiculous comparisons to the Umberger hit. IMO, Garrioch sounded less like an objective journalist and more like a Sens' public relations shill.

 

My frustration with Strickland's piece was that he was trying to hold the Sabres' hosts (read: entertainers) to the same level as an objective journalist but excusing the actual, legitimate journalist's comments. Should anyone have been surprised that Sylvester cut off Garrioch for taking unprovoked shots at his employers? shrader is right - Sylvester probably overreacted (as most of us would) but just didn't make the right points or ask the right questions. He got frustrated, and probably had a producer chirping in his ear to end the interview, so he cut it short.

 

As for the amateur hour comment - that is the way a lot of sports entertainment shows are heading. Watch PTI, Around the Horn, Sports Reporters, Coach's Corner, heck even CBC's Hot Stove Satellite, and you'll see hosts and reporters arguing with one another and cutting each other off. Let's not act like this was something new to the world of sports media.

[jad1]

BM, come on. It was amateur hour on MSG that night. You don't invite someone from Ottawa on your show and then cut him off when the opinion is against the Sabres' company line.

 

I think we've gone over this before. There are no objective sports journalists. Not a one. Even a guy like Tim Graham of the News, who plays it very straight in his stories, will give his opinions on the Sabres away from the paper.

 

Sylvester didn't cut the interview short because of the whining comment. They ran out of time in the segment. Ray asked the last question in the interview, not Sylvester.

 

Garrioch was a complete clown in this interview. Bringing up the Umberger hit, while ignoring that Golisano admitted the Connolly hit was legal, was cherrypicking the facts.

 

It's amazing that the coaches, players, media, and fans can't come together in this league and universially condemn late hits to the head.

[JujuFish]

Does anyone have a video of the interview?

[inkman]

BM, come on. It was amateur hour on MSG that night. You don't invite someone from Ottawa on your show and then cut him off when the opinion is against the Sabres' company line.

Thank you.

[Bmwolf21]

Again, this type of interview is becoming the norm in sports media, and I don't really care one way or the other whether someone thinks it was "amateur hour" or not. Personally I was glad that Sylvester cut off a "reporter" who decided to act as a Sens PR person for the night.

 

My complaint is that people are throwing all the blame on the Sabres hosts and letting Garrioch skate off scot-free in this debate - as if he was totally blameless in the interview. Why would you go into an interview with the Sabres hosts, and start taking unprovoked shots at the owner of the show? And if you did, wouldn't you expect the show's hosts to protect their employer by interrupting you?

[FogBat]

From Andy Strickland's blog at hockeybuzz.com:

 

Ummm...did anyone clue Strickland into the fact that Garrioch was the "objective journalist" who used the term "whining to a new level" while Sylvester and co. are Sabres' game night employees, and not journalists?

 

Seriously, between theis crap and Eklund, is there any reason why I should keep wasting time looking at that site?

/rant

I signed up for hockeybuzz.com a long time ago. I haven't been there in a while. I have more important things to do with my life -- aside from coming here and speaking my mind.

[Goodfella25]

F that fat POS. Who the hell is he anyway? Sylvester was completely right in cutting him off, because he was full of crap. And what do you expect but "homerism," I mean come on, someone has to stick up for the Sabres because you know damn well no one else in hockey will.

[carpandean]

Does anyone have a video of the interview?

 

[Corp000085]

 

 

 

and that should close the argument against sylvester and co.

[Stoner]

 

 

and that should close the argument against sylvester and co.

 

How should it? Why cut off a guest for a reasonable opinion? I don't get it. Maybe it's my pesky objectivity again, but as a Sabres fan, I don't want to be "protected" by Kevin Sylvester from opinions that differ from the company line. I wish Roby or Ray had stepped in and continued the debate. Could have been great TV instead of propaganda.

 

The letter was ridiculous whining. And the hit was clean, if a bit shady, but hey that's the way the game is played. To add to Garrioch's point, did the owner of the Bruins write a letter to Gary Bettman when Adam Mair charged and sucker punched that rookie in Buffalo, knocking him out with a concussion AFTER the whistle?

[Wraith]

How should it? Why cut off a guest for a reasonable opinion? I don't get it. Maybe it's my pesky objectivity again, but as a Sabres fan, I don't want to be "protected" by Kevin Sylvester from opinions that differ from the company line. I wish Roby or Ray had stepped in and continued the debate. Could have been great TV instead of propaganda.

 

The letter was ridiculous whining. And the hit was clean, if a bit shady, but hey that's the way the game is played. To add to Garrioch's point, did the owner of the Bruins write a letter to Gary Bettman when Adam Mair charged and sucker punched that rookie in Buffalo, knocking him out with a concussion AFTER the whistle?

 

 

So the beat writer for the Ottawa Senators acting like 14 year old during the Sabres telecast is alright with you, but the Sabres owner writing a respectfully worded letter to the NHL is not? Why is one allowed to express their opinion and the other not, in your mind? And why do we have to look at other NHL owners actions to validate our own? That's an awfully slippery slope. And finally, how can a hit be both clean and a bit shady?

[Stoner]

 

 

So the beat writer for the Ottawa Senators acting like 14 year old during the Sabres telecast is alright with you, but the Sabres owner writing a respectfully worded letter to the NHL is not? Why is one allowed to express their opinion and the other not, in your mind? And why do we have to look at other NHL owners actions to validate our own? That's an awfully slippery slope. And finally, how can a hit be both clean and a bit shady?

 

How was he acting like a 14-year-old? Again, I'm missing it. Who looked worse, Garrioch or the paid hack assumed he hadn't read the letter and then tried to cut him off?

 

I would substitute "legal" for "clean." But you got me there, I guess. That's the only thing that remotely bothered me about the hit, besides Drury being lost -- Neil came from the side. But last I checked, there is no penalty for doing that. But it's in that gray area. A shady spot. :)

[jad1]

How was he acting like a 14-year-old? Again, I'm missing it. Who looked worse, Garrioch or the paid hack assumed he hadn't read the letter and then tried to cut him off?

 

I would substitute "legal" for "clean." But you got me there, I guess. That's the only thing that remotely bothered me about the hit, besides Drury being lost -- Neil came from the side. But last I checked, there is no penalty for doing that. But it's in that gray area. A shady spot. :)

 

Have you read the letter? That gray area you mention is exactly what Golisano wants the league to address.

 

Golisano explained in the letter that the Connolly hit was "clean" because it happened while Connolly was playing the puck. Drury had released the puck, and thats where Golisano wants to refine the rule to potect players so they don't have to duck and cover every time they make a pass or take a shot.

 

Garrioch, in mentioning the Umberger hit, which is very much like the Connolly hit in that Umberger was playing the puck, shows that he didn't either read the letter, or he read it and didn't understand it. That's why Sylvester asked him if he read the letter.

 

I assume that as a journalist, Garrioch should have been able to figure this out, and address the distinction that Golisano makes between hits that happen within the context of play, and hits that don't. Instead, he played the hack by calling the team owner a "whiner" on a Sabres telecast.

[Wraith]

How was he acting like a 14-year-old? Again, I'm missing it. Who looked worse, Garrioch or the paid hack assumed he hadn't read the letter and then tried to cut him off?

 

The reason I said the writer was acting like a 14 year old is because he never specifically addresses any of the letters content. Instead of addressing anything with substance, he dismisses the entire thing as mere whining. It's something we used to do in middle school, and it's immature. It's a way of dismissing comments without putting yourself on the line and actually addressing said comments. If you can't come up with a good reason, just call it whining, that will shut him up. He closed the door on any future reasonable conversation by starting off with an immature coomment. In my mind, anyway.

 

I would substitute "legal" for "clean." But you got me there, I guess. That's the only thing that remotely bothered me about the hit, besides Drury being lost -- Neil came from the side. But last I checked, there is no penalty for doing that. But it's in that gray area. A shady spot. :)

 

This I can live with. My reaction comes from watching Sens fan come in here spouting off about how the hit was "clean" because the rules do not explicitly ban the action. There are a lot things a player can do that are not explicity banned by the rules that are definitely not "clean" and this is one of them. To me, the action was borderline in many different respects, making it technically legal, and "a bit shady," and definitely not completely clean.

[eliwhitneyradio]

Come on folks, we've been through this. The Sabres broadcast crew is a bunch of amateurs. You've got two meatheads with Sly as a moderator. They only entertain me because their unprofessional act is worth a few laughs every night.

[X. Benedict]

If you bring on a guy for his opinion and perspective, why throw up all the

interference? Did you ask to interview the guy so we could hear Sylvester's

opinion?

[jad1]

If you bring on a guy for his opinion and perspective, why throw up all the

interference? Did you ask to interview the guy so we could hear Sylvester's

opinion?

 

Ray and Roby are paid to offer their opinion and perspective. Sylvester is paid to place context around their opinion and perspective. Telling them to clam up when they interview a guest is telling them not to do their jobs.

 

Garrioch also made some statements that were just wrong, and should have been challenged (bringing up the Umberger hit, for example).

 

I'm sure that when he was invited onto the show as a guest that he was expected to bring more than saying that the Golisano letter 'represents whining in its highest form.'

 

As an 'objective' jounalist he should have been easily able to view Golisano as an owner with a concern for safety and integrity of the game rather than a whiner, and address the isssue at that level.

[SarasotaSabre]

Inkman,

 

I have followed your replies to different issues for several issues, and it seems as though you take a decidely anti-Sabres stance on a lot of issues. How anyone can defend Garrioch is beyond comprehension. He crossed the line on several fronts and capped it by taking a potshot at the Sabres' owner. Maybe if he had shown more professionalism, class, and objectivity, he would he been shown the same by Sylvester. My initial reaction was that he was a shill for the Senators, and intended to provoke a predictable response from the Sabres broadcast team.

 

I am all for constructive debate utilizing logic and reasoning, not bandwangonesque cheerleading, but it seems as though some bloggers (like yourself) enjoy taking the contrarian view, however wrong, just for the sake of standing out by having a minority opinion.

[Bmwolf21]

Garrioch also made some statements that were just wrong, and should have been challenged (bringing up the Umberger hit, for example).

 

I'm sure that when he was invited onto the show as a guest that he was expected to bring more than saying that the Golisano letter 'represents whining in its highest form.'

 

As an 'objective' jounalist he should have been easily able to view Golisano as an owner with a concern for safety and integrity of the game rather than a whiner, and address the isssue at that level.

Agreed, jad. As I mentioned before, Garrioch shouldn't get off without absorbing some of the blame here - if you are going onto an interview with an entertainment show owned & run by the man whose actions you are going to comment on, wouldn't you choose your words a little more carefully? Had he made his comments with less inflammatory terms than "whining to a new level" and "bordering on ridiculous" most of us would have taken his opinion more seriously, and I don't think the debate would have spun out of control the way it did, and I don't think Sylvester would have had to cut him off.

 

As another poster put it, it was an immature (and I'll add lazy) way to discuss the letter, and it was apparent (to me, at least) that he didn't read or understand Golisano's message. In fairness, Garrioch did claim to have read it right before going on air with the Sabres' broadcast team, but his inability to talk about any of the letter's specifics leads me to believe that he did not read the letter, but rather browsed it quickly, and didn't really get the message that I think Golisano was trying to convey. Instead, he decided to dismiss Golisano's concerns (about a dangerous type of hit costing the NHL star players) as "ridiculous" and "whining."

 

Had he read it completely and thought about it, he would have realized the letter was indeed about the need for the league to eliminate those type of blind-side cheap shots and hits to the head, and for the league to protect it's players from injury. Nothing else. He didn't call for specific redress from the league; he didn't call for Neil's suspension/expulsion from the league, didn't ask the Sens to cut Neil or send him down to the AHL or anything. He was just asking the league to look at and start finding ways to cut down on these predatory hits, and I think Garrioch's inability to discuss Golisano's letter, coupled with his misrepresentation of Golisano's intent, frustrated Sylvester and he (over?)reacted.