Around the NHL 2019-20

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

If Milbury no longer performed at an acceptable standard then his contract should not be renewed. I have no problem with that. He has been on the air for years and he is a known quantity by the company he works for. His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. The comment he made about women not being in the bubble was in my opinion stupid but not malicious. It was an outdated view but far from being misogynistic. As I said in prior posts the more pernicious problem is creating an environment that stifles the free flow of views out of fear of be out of step of the prevailing way of thinking. People who are in the "talking business" are not always judicious in what they say. I'm not bothered by it as much as others. I have the ability to counter the view or ignore the view and tune out. 

I don't recall Lorentz or Neale needing to be provocative in order to offer commentary.

[shrader]

12 hours ago, Eleven said:

This is much more interesting than the Milbury situation.  Fleury's agent is really stirring it up.  Thing is, though, Lehner had better stats this season and Fleury isn't exactly a spring chicken.

Where is the blood coming from. The sword clearly went over the shoulder and under the pads. 
 

Wait a second... sword? DeBoer is orchestrating a trade to the Sabres. 

[apuszczalowski]

12 hours ago, Eleven said:

This is much more interesting than the Milbury situation.  Fleury's agent is really stirring it up.  Thing is, though, Lehner had better stats this season and Fleury isn't exactly a spring chicken.

It would be pretty cool to see Fleury start for another expansion team.

[Brawndo]

11 minutes ago, shrader said:

Where is the blood coming from. The sword clearly went over the shoulder and under the pads. 
 

Wait a second... sword? DeBoer is orchestrating a trade to the Sabres. 

If they want to add Cody Glass or another prospect to the deal in exchange for taking his 7 Million Dollar Contract for two seasons I’d listen. 

[apuszczalowski]

12 minutes ago, shrader said:

Where is the blood coming from. The sword clearly went over the shoulder and under the pads. 
 

Wait a second... sword? DeBoer is orchestrating a trade to the Sabres. 

I always thought Fleury was overrated on the pens but he was good for Vegas, I wouldn't be against him being here for a couple seasons

He seems to be a funny guy too so he could fit in with some of the other players around here, plus he could get much better if he gets to work at the Tre White Goalie Academy.....

[Weave]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

If Milbury no longer performed at an acceptable standard then his contract should not be renewed. I have no problem with that. He has been on the air for years and he is a known quantity by the company he works for. His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. The comment he made about women not being in the bubble was in my opinion stupid but not malicious. It was an outdated view but far from being misogynistic. As I said in prior posts the more pernicious problem is creating an environment that stifles the free flow of views out of fear of be out of step of the prevailing way of thinking. People who are in the "talking business" are not always judicious in what they say. I'm not bothered by it as much as others. I have the ability to counter the view or ignore the view and tune out. 

So, if your performance is no longer considered to be up to standards You expect your employer to wait for a renewal period to move you along?  That is simply not reasonable or realistic.

Yes, he’s been on the air for years as a known quantity.  Standards change.  He hasn’t.  His own lack of foresight is the problem, really.  Situational awareness is part of living and working in any corporate environment.  Evolve or die.  We all deal with it.  He just did too.

And really, the argument that free flow of ideas is being stifled is ridiculous.  1.  What free idea was he expressing?  That men can’t focus in the presence  women?  Such valuable insight that should be protected.  And 2. Noone is stopping him from spreading his opinion publicly.  They are stopping him from tying his opinion to NBC. And that really is the beginning and end to it.  He’s always free to find or create an outlet for his viewpoints.  The internet is full of venues for his commentary.  

Congratulations on your ability to ignore boorish behavior and rationalize its presence.   I’m not convinced it is a superior trait here.

Edit to add: Milbury just watched a co-worker get let go for commentary that fits the same genre as the commentary he was just let go for airing.  Again, it comes down to situational awareness and changing standards.  Milbury's advance notice of the new on air standard was Roenick's dismissal.  f Mike Milbury couldn't do the mental gymnastics to equate Roenick's firing and the commentary that preceded it, to what he was offering on the air, then he's simply not smart enough to survive.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Weave

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, Weave said:

So, if your performance is no longer considered to be up to standards You expect your employer to wait for a renewal period to move you along?  That is simply not reasonable or realistic.

Yes, he’s been on the air for years as a known quantity.  Standards change.  He hasn’t.  His own lack of foresight is the problem, really.  Situational awareness is part of living and working in any corporate environment.  Evolve or die.  We all deal with it.  He just did too.

And really, the argument that free flow of ideas is being stifled is ridiculous.  1.  What free idea was he expressing?  That men can’t focus in the presence  women?  Such valuable insight that should be protected.  And 2. Noone is stopping him from spreading his opinion publicly.  They are stopping him from tying his opinion to NBC. And that really is the beginning and end to it.  He’s always free to find or create an outlet for his viewpoints.  The internet is full of venues for his commentary.  

Congratulations on your ability to ignore boorish behavior and rationalize its presence.   I’m not convinced it is a superior trait here.

There are colleges that won't allow professors with different political philosophies into their economic and legal programs for fear of the backlash. There are colleges that won't allow speakers to give lectures because their countervailing views challenge the prevailing view. At one point Jerry Seinfeld said he would no longer perform at colleges because he was tired of the oppressive political correct mentality. (I'm not sure if he has changed his stance on performing at colleges?) So the notion that 

Mike Milbury made an outdated comment about the bubble. There was little that was wrong with it other than it was a little cringe worthy. Milbury was not fired for boorish behavior. He was fired for a comment that was out of tune with more modern views. There is a difference between bad behavior and his comments. He clearly didn't mean anything untoward.

I understand what your position is but I disagree with it. 

[LTS]

57 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I don't recall Lorentz or Neale needing to be provocative in order to offer commentary.

And Jim Gaffigan doesn't need to swear for his comedy routine.  The point being, however, that you hire a persona to deliver a certain type of product.  You don't hire Milbury for the same reasons you hired Lorentz or Neale (although I would suspect they may have said some things in their time as well). This is meant neither to support or not support Milbury just to point out that there are different methods of performing the same job.

28 minutes ago, Weave said:

So, if your performance is no longer considered to be up to standards You expect your employer to wait for a renewal period to move you along?  That is simply not reasonable or realistic.

Yes, he’s been on the air for years as a known quantity.  Standards change.  He hasn’t.  His own lack of foresight is the problem, really.  Situational awareness is part of living and working in any corporate environment.  Evolve or die.  We all deal with it.  He just did too.

And really, the argument that free flow of ideas is being stifled is ridiculous.  1.  What free idea was he expressing?  That men can’t focus in the presence  women?  Such valuable insight that should be protected.  And 2. Noone is stopping him from spreading his opinion publicly.  They are stopping him from tying his opinion to NBC. And that really is the beginning and end to it.  He’s always free to find or create an outlet for his viewpoints.  The internet is full of venues for his commentary.  

Congratulations on your ability to ignore boorish behavior and rationalize its presence.   I’m not convinced it is a superior trait here.

Edit to add: Milbury just watched a co-worker get let go for commentary that fits the same genre as the commentary he was just let go for airing.  Again, it comes down to situational awareness and changing standards.  Milbury's advance notice of the new on air standard was Roenick's dismissal.  f Mike Milbury couldn't do the mental gymnastics to equate Roenick's firing and the commentary that preceded it, to what he was offering on the air, then he's simply not smart enough to survive.

This is stretching it quite a bit is it not?  Roenick talked about having a threesome, etc.  He was specifically discussing sexual acts with specific co-workers.  Milbury simply discussed generic male hockey players getting distracted by women.  Again, I am not here to weigh in on Milbury's comments as right or wrong. But I think it's a stretch to say they approach anything close to what Roenick said.  

[Weave]

@JohnCYou disagree that a company should remove a voice that that is likely to cause it’s business harm?  Cuz that is my point. It seems obvious on its face that any company would and should protect its name and brand, which is what happened here.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Weave

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, LTS said:

And Jim Gaffigan doesn't need to swear for his comedy routine.  The point being, however, that you hire a persona to deliver a certain type of product.  You don't hire Milbury for the same reasons you hired Lorentz or Neale (although I would suspect they may have said some things in their time as well). This is meant neither to support or not support Milbury just to point out that there are different methods of performing the same job.

This is stretching it quite a bit is it not?  Roenick talked about having a threesome, etc.  He was specifically discussing sexual acts with specific co-workers.  Milbury simply discussed generic male hockey players getting distracted by women.  Again, I am not here to weigh in on Milbury's comments as right or wrong. But I think it's a stretch to say they approach anything close to what Roenick said.  

The overall point was situational awareness.  Milbury, in a public facing role, should have had enough of it to understand that what he brings has increased scrutiny now and needs modification.

[SwampD]

57 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

If they want to add Cody Glass or another prospect to the deal in exchange for taking his 7 Million Dollar Contract for two seasons I’d listen. 

Congrats on 20,000!

[Eleven]

29 minutes ago, LTS said:

And Jim Gaffigan doesn't need to swear for his comedy routine.  The point being, however, that you hire a persona to deliver a certain type of product.  You don't hire Milbury for the same reasons you hired Lorentz or Neale (although I would suspect they may have said some things in their time as well). This is meant neither to support or not support Milbury just to point out that there are different methods of performing the same job.

" His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. " is what I was responding to.  Providing commentary was equated to provocation.

Frankly, if Harry Neale had made the remark on Thursday, I don't think we'd be talking about it.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Eleven

[LTS]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

The overall point was situational awareness.  Milbury, in a public facing role, should have had enough of it to understand that what he brings has increased scrutiny now and needs modification.

I understood the overall point, but I find the linking of the two incidents to be a significant stretch.  Milbury is capable of being an idiot all on his own, but what he said was in not in the same league as Roenick.

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

" His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. " is what I was responding to.  Providing commentary was equated to provocation.

Frankly, if Harry Neale had made the remark on Thursday, I don't think we'd be talking about it.

I think if Harry Neale had said the same thing on a broadcast with that reach we'd be talking about it.  If he had said it on a Sabres broadcast we would be talking about it, but perhaps with a slight delay while the hype train got going.  I guess I wasn't sure what you were referring to.  Milbury was naturally there to provide commentary but to do so in his style. His style would naturally grate on some people, but having that edge might appeal to the fringe hockey fans who are attracted to that kind of commentary.

 

[Brawndo]

2 hours ago, SwampD said:

Congrats on 20,000!

Thanks Swamp! 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

I understood the overall point, but I find the linking of the two incidents to be a significant stretch.  Milbury is capable of being an idiot all on his own, but what he said was in not in the same league as Roenick.

 

 

In the same league in terms of severity, no.  In the same league in terms of being chauvinistic in subject matter, absolutely.

[Stoner]

5 hours ago, Eleven said:

I don't recall Lorentz or Neale needing to be provocative in order to offer commentary.

I can remember an Angry Lorentz during the Gurtler reign. It was oddly out of character, and I'm not sure what it was about.

Harry provoked me with his measurements.

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, Weave said:

@JohnCYou disagree that a company should remove a voice that that is likely to cause it’s business harm?  Cuz that is my point. It seems obvious on its face that any company would and should protect its name and brand, which is what happened here.

This inane comment was not going to result in damage to the company. Why would it? There was nothing wrong with his statement. It was an innocuous comment that got blown out of proportion because it resulted in some people being offended. This willingness and receptivity to being offended is one of the issues that I am complaining about. People need to toughen up and get over themselves.  Some people get offended when you call them Miss instead of Ms. I can understand why some people didn't appreciate the comment. But making it rise to a job disqualifying level is not only an absurdity--- it was unfair. When his response was brought to his attention he apologized for it. What ever happened to the concept of proportionality. There are a lot of issues to get exercised over. This isn't one of them. 

[Weave]

25 minutes ago, JohnC said:

This inane comment was not going to result in damage to the company. Why would it?

For starters, it could damage the relationship between the NHL and NBC...
 

Quote

 

The NHL issued a statement Friday saying Milbury's comments did not reflect the league's values.

"The National Hockey League condemns the insensitive and insulting comment that Mike Milbury made during last night's broadcast and we have communicated our feelings to NBC. The comment did not reflect the NHL's values and commitment to making our game more inclusive and welcoming to all."

 

 

[BagBoy]

JohnC,

I think you should ask a few women about how innocuous they felt Milbury's comment is.

What if he had made a snide comment about the Sabres?  Leafs fans would have loved it, but you and I would be irate.  The issue here is not how you feel about the backlash, it's about how the victimized (women) were made to feel.

Edited August 23, 2020 by BagBoy

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, BagBoy said:

JohnC,

I think you should ask a few women about how innocuous they felt Milbury's comment is.

What if he had made a snide comment about the Sabres?  Leafs fans would have loved it, but you and I would be irate.  The issue here is not how you feel about the backlash, it's about how the victimized (women) were made to feel.

I'm sure that there are women who feel insulted by his comments. And I'm sure there are women who don't feel insulted by his comments. However, for those who do feel victimized by his inane comments they need to toughen up and deal with the real world. 

With regards to a Leaf fan making a snide remark about the Sabres my response is who freaking cares how anyone else characterizes this less than successful team. If one can't handle ridiculing words then the person who is bothered is pathetically weak and lame. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

2 hours ago, BagBoy said:

JohnC,

I think you should ask a few women about how innocuous they felt Milbury's comment is.

What if he had made a snide comment about the Sabres?  Leafs fans would have loved it, but you and I would be irate.  The issue here is not how you feel about the backlash, it's about how the victimized (women) were made to feel.

The whole conversation is moot with the reason being that this "societal change" crap is totally built upon hipocracy. No one is perfect so to expect perfection from someone else at any given time is unjust.

These "victimized" women are who? Is it the woman that goes to a sporting event, stands in the aisle with a beer in her hand shaking her donkey to attract the cameraman so she gets her 20 seconds of YouTube fame? Or the one who wouldn't care about what was said if Milbury looked like Adonnis instead of Michael Myers?

And the men backing the firing that just have a deep rooted hatred for him. I'm sure there's at least one out there that is hiding a Playboy mag under his mattress, has a mirrored ceiling with a swing, along with a Jillian Michael's workout poster "pasted" on the wall.

Is it the woman an hour before closing at the bar that gets hit on by the 5'3"/350lb guy who resembles Freddy Kreuger and tells her friends what a creep he is and then gushes when Fabio walks by and says hello? Is it the 400lb spandex model? Or the movie star dressed (barely) walking down the red carpet at the Academy Awards looking to get on the mag cover? Or the guy watching  just to see it?

I could go on and on about the political correctness and the hipocracy of it all. How anyone could say it doesn't suppress freedoms is beyond belief.

I have no love for Milbury but many people are losing their jobs over this B.S. and less. Worse yet, some are being violently attacked for needless things.

 

( This might be sadistic sarcasm....or not).

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by MakeSabresGrr8Again

[BagBoy]

50 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm sure that there are women who feel insulted by his comments. And I'm sure there are women who don't feel insulted by his comments. However, for those who do feel victimized by his inane comments they need to toughen up and deal with the real world. 

With regards to a Leaf fan making a snide remark about the Sabres my response is who freaking cares how anyone else characterizes this less than successful team. If one can't handle ridiculing words then the person who is bothered is pathetically weak and lame. 

I should have said marginalized instead of victimized, so good job to bring that out.

Yes we (The Sabres) suck, so I get your point, but I don't think you are getting mine.  What if the comment was about Buffalo in general?  Or your family?  You would not blow it off then.  Because then you would feel marginalized and rightly so.  

I will try one last time to make you understand that the real issue here is not that society has become overly PC, but rather that most people are becoming more empathetic regarding the marginalized, and even more importantly, that this is a very good thing.  Fighting it is not.

[Zamboni]

I’m not saying it applies here... But I see examples everyday of people and groups who confuse empathy (a great trait to have), with being too sensitive over any issue they disagree with. So much so they don’t have basic debating and coping skills to function in everyday society without taking a Valium. Or they are in a constant state of “I hate everything everywhere everyone”.  It’s stark. And a sad way to exist in life.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Zamboni

[shrader]

10 hours ago, Brawndo said:

If they want to add Cody Glass or another prospect to the deal in exchange for taking his 7 Million Dollar Contract for two seasons I’d listen. 

I mostly just think the agent is an idiot. That sword is a claymore, right? I can’t imagine those ever worked very well with the stabbing. 

[LTS]

19 hours ago, JohnC said:

This inane comment was not going to result in damage to the company. Why would it? There was nothing wrong with his statement. It was an innocuous comment that got blown out of proportion because it resulted in some people being offended. This willingness and receptivity to being offended is one of the issues that I am complaining about. People need to toughen up and get over themselves.  Some people get offended when you call them Miss instead of Ms. I can understand why some people didn't appreciate the comment. But making it rise to a job disqualifying level is not only an absurdity--- it was unfair. When his response was brought to his attention he apologized for it. What ever happened to the concept of proportionality. There are a lot of issues to get exercised over. This isn't one of them. 

The issue at hand is that you are applying your ideals and values to the situation.  That's fine, but it doesn't make it right. "People need to toughen up and get over themselves" is the very mantra that causes many problems in society.

When is it inappropriate?  Where is that line?  The problem being that the line isn't clear.  Whether you feel it is or it is not does not define it for society. 

There are women who believe what he said was unfair.  I say that because you think NBC exercising its right to remove him from the broadcast was unfair. To be a complete jerk about it, why can't I say to you, "Get over yourself, why are you letting what NBC does with Mike Milbury bother you?"  Why does it bother you that people get upset over things like this?  

it's the opposite side of your opinion right?  People feel like they should be allowed to get upset over this because they do feel that statements like those have to be shown to be unacceptable and you can't do that with a passive tone. You need to make a statement.  You are making a statement as well.

You feel like they should just let it go. It's not that big of a deal.  Who gets to decide that?