Reinhart Dressed and Benched; Late to Meeting

[Weave]

Don't think there really is a rift between young and old like what is being reported by the media

Keep in mind, it was national media reporting the dressing room condition.

[LTS]

So, in your opinion is there a difference between dressing and sitting on bench vs. in a suit in the press box in terms of degree of punishment ?

 

If you think there isn't, any further discussion is pointless

 

If you think there is, which I do, then DD was as much in the wrong as Reinhart

 

I never said not to punish him, I've only said, based on what we know (a reported lateness to meeting, and Gio saying it was "something small"), said punishment is too severe.

 

You seem to be comfortable taking the position that there must be more to it --- why not the position based on what you know and react

 

The option for suit in the press box is only available as an option if you choose to delay implementing the disciplinary action.  I do not believe it should have been delayed and therefore the suit in the press box option was not available. Reinhart had to dress per NHL rules.  How long he sat there is still up for debate.  If the Sabres could have put him in the press box and then chose to put him on the bench anyway I would be firmly in the camp of fire the entire front office. However, he had to dress and had to sit on the bench.  There is no scenario, that we are aware of, that allowed the Sabres to NOT put him on the bench dressed as a player.  Again, why was he there so long?  That's a different conversation for me... I don't know, but I want to.

 

Missing a meeting is something small.  He didn't get busted for drugs, driving drunk, assault, sexual harassment.  It's small.  You do the crime, you serve the time, you move on.

 

I am not acting like there is more to it.  He missed a meeting.  That's what is being said and no one is refuting it.  You miss a meeting, you miss a game.  That's how it works.  The players all know it and it happened and so he missed a game.

 

In addressing hypothesized scenarios about him being on the bench the whole game?

 

If he CHOSE to be there to be support his team then I think he earns major points from his teammates.  Everyone knows its out there for display the entire game.  If that's the case then I think it shows some serious character from him. Everyone makes mistakes, how they chose to own them is what I care about.

 

If Bylsma chose to put him on the bench against his wishes then that's the equivalent of dressing him if they had the option not to.  It's out of line and unwarranted.

 

If it's another reason... then I'll respond when it's posted.

[TrueBlueGED]

In which case I addressed your "alternative" methods in addressing it because it's along the lines of what Georgia was putting out there.

 

 

So what do you do if Eichel and Reinhart blast Bylsma and O'Reilly, Okposo, and Kane support him? I am sure you say that you dump Bylsma and then trade O'Reilly, Okposo, and Kane. Where does that really leave the team however? I want Bylsma gone but I think the situation is a bit more complicated.

My expectation is that player interviews are only going to mean much if Murray hasn't already decided to fire Bylsma. If Murray plans on keeping Bylsma, I think it'd take a pretty united front of important players to change that. If Murray is on the fence, then it's hard to say what would happen either way...though much to the chagrin of the old school crowd, my guess would be Jack's opinion carries the day.

 

Personally, I think there's plenty of reason to fire Bylsma without any regard to how the players feel about him. I hope Murray feels the same way, but I'm not really convinced he does.

[darksabre]

How do explain the fact that you called someone you disagree with and are having this discussion with a troll?

 

Rather odd if, indeed, you think this is not a big deal, no?

Um, because he's trolling? I can't call someone a troll when they're trolling? 

[Doohicksie]

Hello SmarmD,

 

Welcome to the board.

 

Your avatar looks familiar and your post count is outrageous.

 

:flirt:

Edited March 29, 2017 by Doohickie

[DarthEbriate]

This is the biggest non-story of the season.

 

I love this thread.

I missed the game last night and this thread provides the perfect Sabres entertainment. Ideally, Bylsma announces it before the game, Reinhart can go back into the room after the anthem -- like an equipment problem, and everything plays out accordingly.

 

But, like a good prequel, nothing can play out accordingly for this franchise.

 

Let's stoke the fires of this Speculation Wagon. What if Okposo learned Reinhart was going to get the benching, and then mysteriously got "sick" just to force DB's hand? These are the Days of Our Lives. Or The Young and the Restless.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Um, because he's trolling? I can't call someone a troll when they're trolling?

So, you are admitting that it is a big deal, right?

 

Surely, no would call another member, especially a long-term and well-respected one, a troll over a small deal.

[Doohicksie]

So, you are admitting that it is a big deal, right?

 

Surely, no would call another member, especially a long-term and well-respected one, a troll over a small deal.

 

Sure I would.  :devil:

[darksabre]

So, you are admitting that it is a big deal, right?

 

Surely, no would call another member, especially a long-term and well-respected one, a troll over a small deal.

Why not? 

[Iron Crotch]

If GMTM would have just drafted Leon Draisaitl instead of Samson like he should have, none of this would have happened.

 

:angel:

 

[Stoner]

Hello SmarmD,

 

Welcome to the board.

 

Your avatar looks familiar and your post count is outrageous.

 

+++++

 

It is obvious that if you don't like the coach you feel this is a stupid decision.  If you like the coach, or maybe are on the fence, this is acceptable.

Hmmm, I'm up for another round of username-changing.

[North Buffalo]

Are those real reports or BS stirred up by BN writers to sell papers?

 

 

Sam I Am

 

/Dr. Seuss

 

For the rest of that: That's just not how a professional acts.

 

 

No. Okposo was also out (ill I believe) and no extra D.

You have never worked on Capitol Hill or in Hospital... happens all the time... key not leaving your finger prints directly on anything.

 

Again make the punishment fit the crime and make effective. Effective does not mean short term ramifications... it means effect on team and player. Ps wouldnt be a big deal if was appropriate punishment and even less if this team was winning and Dan was a good coach.

Edited March 29, 2017 by North Buffalo

[SwampD]

So, you are admitting that it is a big deal, right?

 

Surely, no would call another member, especially a long-term and well-respected one, a troll over a small deal.

I pointed out some faulty logic and was then called smarmy and a kool aid drinker. Once that happened I wouldn't so much call it trolling as I would call it dip netting for smelt during the run.

 

 

...And smarmy I'm cool with. That's most likely accurate. But Kool Aid drinker?! That cuts deep.

Edited March 29, 2017 by SmarmD

[inkman]

If my boss humiliated me in front of my colleagues like that I wouldn't work harder for him, I'd want him fired

Yeah but that usually doesn't happen. You have to quit.

[North Buffalo]

Yeah but that usually doesn't happen. You have to quit.

Depends on the level of the boss.... if owner not... but bosses can be made to be made incompetent and fired..

Edited March 29, 2017 by North Buffalo

[WildCard]

Yeah but that usually doesn't happen. You have to quit.

Not in sports though

[Georgia Blizzard]

The option for suit in the press box is only available as an option if you choose to delay implementing the disciplinary action.  I do not believe it should have been delayed and therefore the suit in the press box option was not available. Reinhart had to dress per NHL rules.  How long he sat there is still up for debate.  If the Sabres could have put him in the press box and then chose to put him on the bench anyway I would be firmly in the camp of fire the entire front office. However, he had to dress and had to sit on the bench.  There is no scenario, that we are aware of, that allowed the Sabres to NOT put him on the bench dressed as a player.  Again, why was he there so long?  That's a different conversation for me... I don't know, but I want to.

 

Missing a meeting is something small.  He didn't get busted for drugs, driving drunk, assault, sexual harassment.  It's small.  You do the crime, you serve the time, you move on.

 

I am not acting like there is more to it.  He missed a meeting.  That's what is being said and no one is refuting it.  You miss a meeting, you miss a game.  That's how it works.  The players all know it and it happened and so he missed a game.

 

In addressing hypothesized scenarios about him being on the bench the whole game?

 

If he CHOSE to be there to be support his team then I think he earns major points from his teammates.  Everyone knows its out there for display the entire game.  If that's the case then I think it shows some serious character from him. Everyone makes mistakes, how they chose to own them is what I care about.

 

If Bylsma chose to put him on the bench against his wishes then that's the equivalent of dressing him if they had the option not to.  It's out of line and unwarranted.

 

If it's another reason... then I'll respond when it's posted.

 

He was LATE to meeting, didn't miss it (at least as reported).

 

If you had to dress him and have him on bench per CBA, like I said, I'd have deferred punishment until Sunday (it's not like he's a dog your training that needs to have punishment at time of infraction) --- worst case, you dress him and sit him for a few shifts or for 1/2 a period

 

Again, LATE for meeting doesn't rise to level of punishment

 

If the infraction was worse than that, why didn't Gionta infer as much ? -- if this was a repeated offense, why didn't DD or Gio say, repeated violations ? 

 

Like I said earlier, can anyone point to another situation like this in the league over the past 10 years ?  Gio says it happens, I can't recall any

[Radar]

Wildcard you really hate this coach for sure. I'm indifferent if he's back next year or gone, but you seem to be on a personal campaign against him. Players are big boys making big money get to the meetings it's part of your contact responsibility. If his feelings are hurt who cares. We also are not on the inside, for all we know there's more to it than just being late to a meeting.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Radar

[Doohicksie]

Hmmm, I'm up for another round of username-changing.

 

Meh.  Wait until the off-season.  Or until we can come up with a new theme.

[Brawndo]

Tim Murray told Mike Harrington this afternoon that he wanted the rule of being late changed to a black and white policy. He approached the coaches on Sunday and the rule was changed. The players were told on Monday that if they're late, they'd miss a full game.

 

Per Paul Hamilton.

 

DD isn't going anywhere

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Tim Murray told Mike Harrington this afternoon that he wanted the rule of being late changed to a black and white policy. He approached the coaches on Sunday and the rule was changed. The players were told on Monday that if they're late, they'd miss a full game.

 

Per Paul Hamilton.

 

###### DD isn't going anywhere

 

So, there you have it.  Just as I suspected.

 

Although, why is that clown reporting what the GM said to that other clown.

[DarthEbriate]

How many meetings have our guys been missing that they needed an executive order to change a rule with only ... 6 games (at the time)... remaining in the season?

Come on, guys. Go to your meetings.

 

Lord Murray demands an update on the meeting.

I'll assume full responsibility for my tardiness to the meeting, and apologize to Lord Murray.

Edited March 29, 2017 by DarthEbriate

[Georgia Blizzard]

Tim Murray told Mike Harrington this afternoon that he wanted the rule of being late changed to a black and white policy. He approached the coaches on Sunday and the rule was changed. The players were told on Monday that if they're late, they'd miss a full game.

 

Per Paul Hamilton.

 

###### DD isn't going anywhere

 

Life isn't black and white, when you try to make it that way you'll make an ass out of yourself sooner than later.

[Brawndo]

So tardiness appears to be a problem with the team, necessitating the change in the rule. Does this show that DD has lost segments of the locker room? Or that certain players need to step up?

[LTS]

You have never worked on Capitol Hill or in Hospital... happens all the time... key not leaving your finger prints directly on anything.

 

Again make the punishment fit the crime and make effective. Effective does not mean short term ramifications... it means effect on team and player. Ps wouldnt be a big deal if was appropriate punishment and even less if this team was winning and Dan was a good coach.

 

The punishment is established.  You do the crime you do the time.  We're not arguing whether it should be changed.  At the time of the infraction the rule was... miss the game.  Thus.. you miss the game.  Regardless of winning or the coach being a good coach the issue remains the same.  A player was late to a meeting and was disciplined.  Successful teams don't have that problem. Details matter.

 

He was LATE to meeting, didn't miss it (at least as reported).

 

If you had to dress him and have him on bench per CBA, like I said, I'd have deferred punishment until Sunday (it's not like he's a dog your training that needs to have punishment at time of infraction) --- worst case, you dress him and sit him for a few shifts or for 1/2 a period

 

Again, LATE for meeting doesn't rise to level of punishment

 

If the infraction was worse than that, why didn't Gionta infer as much ? -- if this was a repeated offense, why didn't DD or Gio say, repeated violations ? 

 

Like I said earlier, can anyone point to another situation like this in the league over the past 10 years ?  Gio says it happens, I can't recall any

 

Fine.. late, point is irrelevant insofar as the disciplinary action was "you miss a game". You may have deferred punishment, but I doubt any coach would do such a thing and yes, while he's not my dog it really does make a difference.

 

Regardless of what your opinion of the level of punishment is the player knew at the time of his infraction what the TEAM's STANDARD was and the resultant action.  

 

Not sure where the point I bolded is coming from.  It was listed as a small infraction.. and I said I agreed with that.  Who said repeated violations?

 

Tim Murray told Mike Harrington this afternoon that he wanted the rule of being late changed to a black and white policy. He approached the coaches on Sunday and the rule was changed. The players were told on Monday that if they're late, they'd miss a full game.

 

Per Paul Hamilton.

 

###### DD isn't going anywhere

 

Boom.  It sounds like the team has had some disciplinary issues all season and Murray has grown tired of it and wanted to make it abundantly clear to the players.  I would imagine that this wouldn't be needed to be clarified if it was 1 player, 1 time.  So it sounds like "more to come here".

 

It doesn't mean, to me, that Bylsma isn't going anywhere.  If Murray had to step in and clarify then I would wonder if Murray already sees issues with the coach not being respected by players.  Murray may have stepped in to clarify to the players that regardless of who the coach is you still have to be a professional.