Around the NHL 2019-20

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, sabremike said:

 

Those guys think they’re Jack Eichel? Looks like they have some left over aggression from Black Friday.

[Doohicksie]

19 hours ago, Brawndo said:

The NHL will have to sort this out. 

Could be neither one is lying.  If Francis sent an email, you don't know if Karmanos actually read it. 

[shrader]

I knew that arena wasn't designed for hockey, but square corners?  Wow, I had no idea it was that bad.

[Stoner]

8 hours ago, sabremike said:

 

@Wyldnwoody44 did a nice job breaking it up, and looking good while doing it.

[Wyldnwoody44]

28 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

@Wyldnwoody44 did a nice job breaking it up, and looking good while doing it.

Damn, I didn't think anyone would see me

[Brawndo]

 

[Doohicksie]

Why are they talking about stuff that happened 5 years ago?

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

Why are they talking about stuff that happened 5 years ago?

Because it's the snowflake culture we're becoming. Verbally assaulted five years ago. Poor baby!!! Grow the ***** up and get over it cupcake. What a joke. 

[Doohicksie]

Ironically Franzen outlasted Babcock.

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

Why are they talking about stuff that happened 5 years ago?

 

24 minutes ago, Hank said:

Because it's the snowflake culture we're becoming. Verbally assaulted five years ago. Poor baby!!! Grow the ***** up and get over it cupcake. What a joke. 

Nah it's just gossip at this point.  I'm ignoring it.

[LGR4GM]

42 minutes ago, Hank said:

Because it's the snowflake culture we're becoming. Verbally assaulted five years ago. Poor baby!!! Grow the ***** up and get over it cupcake. What a joke. 

 

[Brawndo]

The Day of Reckoning is coming for a few people it seems

[LTS]

41 minutes ago, Hank said:

Because it's the snowflake culture we're becoming. Verbally assaulted five years ago. Poor baby!!! Grow the ***** up and get over it cupcake. What a joke. 

You love the term snowflake.  You don't even know what was said.  Are you advocating that people should be allowed to speak to others in any way they see fit?

The issue at hand is that it appears that some of these "old school" hockey executives have a rather unprofessional method of dealing with players. It creates an atmosphere they do not want to work in.  This, in any other corporate culture, would be unacceptable, and as such, it should be unacceptable in the NHL as well.

Why five years later?  Well, I think it speaks to the level of concern players have when it comes to speaking up about these matters.  Perhaps they are concerned that "rocking the boat" will lead to them being blackballed by these "old school" hockey executives.  This would then cost them millions of dollars and remove them from playing the game they love.

There's no need to treat other people like garbage.  No one has to accept it.  Your insinuation is that you are allowed to say whatever you want to say and that if someone else doesn't like it, well, that's too bad. Well, if the extent of your interaction with that person is limited to that single engagement, then so be it.  It's easy enough to chalk it up to you being an asshat and move on.  If, however, it's an ongoing interaction, especially when the two have to work together, then it's very much a different story.  You are still an asshat, but the other shouldn't have to leave their job just because you are the asshat.

Johnny might be a snowflake if he can't handle walking his hockey equipment to the car after practice and he gets picked up at the door.

Johnny is not a snowflake if his boss engages in verbal or physical harassment.

 

[Eleven]

19 minutes ago, LTS said:

You love the term snowflake.  You don't even know what was said.  Are you advocating that people should be allowed to speak to others in any way they see fit?

The issue at hand is that it appears that some of these "old school" hockey executives have a rather unprofessional method of dealing with players. It creates an atmosphere they do not want to work in.  This, in any other corporate culture, would be unacceptable, and as such, it should be unacceptable in the NHL as well.

Why five years later?  Well, I think it speaks to the level of concern players have when it comes to speaking up about these matters.  Perhaps they are concerned that "rocking the boat" will lead to them being blackballed by these "old school" hockey executives.  This would then cost them millions of dollars and remove them from playing the game they love.

There's no need to treat other people like garbage.  No one has to accept it.  Your insinuation is that you are allowed to say whatever you want to say and that if someone else doesn't like it, well, that's too bad. Well, if the extent of your interaction with that person is limited to that single engagement, then so be it.  It's easy enough to chalk it up to you being an asshat and move on.  If, however, it's an ongoing interaction, especially when the two have to work together, then it's very much a different story.  You are still an asshat, but the other shouldn't have to leave their job just because you are the asshat.

Johnny might be a snowflake if he can't handle walking his hockey equipment to the car after practice and he gets picked up at the door.

Johnny is not a snowflake if his boss engages in verbal or physical harassment.

 

This is a fair observation and I will reconsider my position that it's "just gossip" at this point.  Players probably feel very pressured not to speak out until it's too late and they're retired.  We've seen other crises with similar foundations in gymnastics, scouting, religion, whatever.  

[Hank]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

 

 

2 hours ago, LTS said:

You love the term snowflake.  You don't even know what was said.  Are you advocating that people should be allowed to speak to others in any way they see fit?

The issue at hand is that it appears that some of these "old school" hockey executives have a rather unprofessional method of dealing with players. It creates an atmosphere they do not want to work in.  This, in any other corporate culture, would be unacceptable, and as such, it should be unacceptable in the NHL as well.

Why five years later?  Well, I think it speaks to the level of concern players have when it comes to speaking up about these matters.  Perhaps they are concerned that "rocking the boat" will lead to them being blackballed by these "old school" hockey executives.  This would then cost them millions of dollars and remove them from playing the game they love.

There's no need to treat other people like garbage.  No one has to accept it.  Your insinuation is that you are allowed to say whatever you want to say and that if someone else doesn't like it, well, that's too bad. Well, if the extent of your interaction with that person is limited to that single engagement, then so be it.  It's easy enough to chalk it up to you being an asshat and move on.  If, however, it's an ongoing interaction, especially when the two have to work together, then it's very much a different story.  You are still an asshat, but the other shouldn't have to leave their job just because you are the asshat.

Johnny might be a snowflake if he can't handle walking his hockey equipment to the car after practice and he gets picked up at the door.

Johnny is not a snowflake if his boss engages in verbal or physical harassment.

 

My post that you both quoted was in response to doohickies question "Why are they talking about stuff that happened 5 years ago?", Regarding Babcock and Franzen. You both attempted to bastardize the meaning of my post into something it is not. Your replies to my post are neither on topic or relevant. Unscrupulous of you both, but not out of character. 

[Hank]

3 hours ago, Eleven said:

This is a fair observation and I will reconsider my position that it's "just gossip" at this point.  Players probably feel very pressured not to speak out until it's too late and they're retired.  We've seen other crises with similar foundations in gymnastics, scouting, religion, whatever.  

I agree with your post. It's a valid perspective. Alow me to offer this.  Five years is a pretty significant time on a developmental curve. We grow, mature and evolve in our ideals and beliefs. I'm a different person than I was five years ago. A better person. I believe you, LTS, and most people would feel the same way about yourselves. Take this online community for example. Five years ago we had a thread dedicated to boobs. We unapologetically objectified beautiful women on here. That would not be tolerated today because as a community we grew, matured and evolved. So in that sense no, I'm no particularly interested in what a grown man may have said to another grown man five years ago that may have hurt his feelings, which is what my post was in reply to. 

[Brawndo]

Another one 

[Weave]

Holy crap.

[Brawndo]

 

[Doohicksie]

4 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Another one 

He always seemed to be a bit of a screamer, that one.

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

I don't know anything about Chandler Stephenson, but a mature third round pick being traded for a 5th round pick?  Sounds like a bust?  .2 PPG, +2 in 168 games.  Interestingly, he's had 2 GWG, both of them this year, and he's only scored 3 goals.

[LTS]

17 hours ago, Hank said:

 

My post that you both quoted was in response to doohickies question "Why are they talking about stuff that happened 5 years ago?", Regarding Babcock and Franzen. You both attempted to bastardize the meaning of my post into something it is not. Your replies to my post are neither on topic or relevant. Unscrupulous of you both, but not out of character. 

I didn't attempt to do anything other than to offer perspective on why someone might wait five years, which was directly responding to your point. I addressed your use of the term snowflake, which I felt did not apply.  It was perfectly relevant.  I did not attempt to bastardize your response.  Your response stands and I refuted it with reason.  Which, Eleven found enough value in to comment that it provided perspective for him.  You then quoted Eleven in your below response that he had made to me.  I would think that indicates it provides some value and is not a bastardization of your response.

It's unfortunate that your response to someone refuting your points is to attempt to label them as unscrupulous.  Your label does not bother me as it could not be further from the truth. 

15 hours ago, Hank said:

I agree with your post. It's a valid perspective. Alow me to offer this.  Five years is a pretty significant time on a developmental curve. We grow, mature and evolve in our ideals and beliefs. I'm a different person than I was five years ago. A better person. I believe you, LTS, and most people would feel the same way about yourselves. Take this online community for example. Five years ago we had a thread dedicated to boobs. We unapologetically objectified beautiful women on here. That would not be tolerated today because as a community we grew, matured and evolved. So in that sense no, I'm no particularly interested in what a grown man may have said to another grown man five years ago that may have hurt his feelings, which is what my post was in reply to. 

Allow me to offer this.  People can evolve, it does not mean they do.

Said grown man was accused of the same behavior more recently. The information being provided by Franzen is an indication that Babcock did not just recently start engaging in this behavior but rather has an established history of behaving this way.  Perhaps it does not mean anything to you, that's fine.  It meant something Franzen, and that's what matters. Franzen lived with it, not you.

Either way, it merely adds more evidence to the fact that Babcock is a certain kind of person, he was that kind of person then, he's that kind of person now.  He may not be that person in the future.  He might evolve, but that hasn't happened yet and at this particular intersection of his behavior and the league standard, it means that he's unemployed.

[LGR4GM]

17 hours ago, Hank said:

 

My post that you both quoted was in response to doohickies question "Why are they talking about stuff that happened 5 years ago?", Regarding Babcock and Franzen. You both attempted to bastardize the meaning of my post into something it is not. Your replies to my post are neither on topic or relevant. Unscrupulous of you both, but not out of character. 

Because I posted a quote from an organization relevant to what we were talking about? In what way did I bastardize your point? 

Block me and be done with it then. 

Actually I am not done. It needs to be said because you are the one taking things out of context, bastardizing the person who said them, and whining about it with personal attacks. You know what is unscrupulous, playing like your are some victim when the only thing I did was post something else in line with the conversation. I quoted you because I was curious as to your response about it. I didn't even comment in the post to avoid this very issue. Apparently your response was to get offended, lash out, and act like the snowflakes you claim to be against. What a joke. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Hank]

23 minutes ago, LTS said:

I didn't attempt to do anything other than to offer perspective on why someone might wait five years, which was directly responding to your point. I addressed your use of the term snowflake, which I felt did not apply.  It was perfectly relevant.  I did not attempt to bastardize your response.  Your response stands and I refuted it with reason.  Which, Eleven found enough value in to comment that it provided perspective for him.  You then quoted Eleven in your below response that he had made to me.  I would think that indicates it provides some value and is not a bastardization of your response.

It's unfortunate that your response to someone refuting your points is to attempt to label them as unscrupulous.  Your label does not bother me as it could not be further from the truth. 

Allow me to offer this.  People can evolve, it does not mean they do.

Said grown man was accused of the same behavior more recently. The information being provided by Franzen is an indication that Babcock did not just recently start engaging in this behavior but rather has an established history of behaving this way.  Perhaps it does not mean anything to you, that's fine.  It meant something Franzen, and that's what matters. Franzen lived with it, not you.

Either way, it merely adds more evidence to the fact that Babcock is a certain kind of person, he was that kind of person then, he's that kind of person now.  He may not be that person in the future.  He might evolve, but that hasn't happened yet and at this particular intersection of his behavior and the league standard, it means that he's unemployed.

You took my comment regarding the specific incident of a grown man maybe hurting another grown mans feelings five years ago and you generalized it because you take issue with my use of the term snowflake. You asserted that I insinuated that I'm okay with people acting like an ***** and essentially being a bully. I do not think it's okay for people to act like that and I did not insinuate otherwise. You DID bastardize my meaning, it WAS unscrupulous of you and it's NOT out of character. 

[Hank]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Because I posted a quote from an organization relevant to what we were talking about? In what way did I bastardize your point? 

Block me and be done with it then. 

Actually I am not done. It needs to be said because you are the one taking things out of context, bastardizing the person who said them, and whining about it with personal attacks. You know what is unscrupulous, playing like your are some victim when the only thing I did was post something else in line with the conversation. I quoted you because I was curious as to your response about it. I didn't even comment in the post to avoid this very issue. Apparently your response was to get offended, lash out, and act like the snowflakes you claim to be against. What a joke. 

I posted about a grown man hurting another grown mans feelings five years ago. You followed with a press release about a grown man demeaning kids today. They're not the same thing. Were you hoping I'd say the kids need to toughen up and get over it? No. It's horrible, we agree on that. I'm glad he was fired. What was your goal there? It wasn't to further discussion.