Around the NHL 2023-24 Season

[Hank]

Besides, if it turns out he's innocent someone will be keeping receipts on all the Lucic/Bruins hate, I don't want to read the back and forth on that for days...

[Scottysabres]

23 minutes ago, Hank said:

I get the humor, just not my particular brand. Regardless of my personal feelings toward the team or player, I don't have it in me to crack a smile when I suspect the target of your humor of domestic violence. No offense intended with the emoji, and no judgment toward you.  

I hear ya, I don't know what happened to be honest, haven't seen the particulars. 

[Zamboni]

Damn, wish it was scumbag instead of Frankenstein.

 

Feel bad for the other person involved obviously. 

[thewookie1]

Feels like everyone magically gets extra points while we never so

[Wyldnwoody44]

4 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Feels like everyone magically gets extra points while we never so

Feels like other teams.... Win in general lol. 

My optimism for this season was low after seeing KA's grand off season plan, now it's next to non existent. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Wyldnwoody44

[Zamboni]

This team could really use a Sam Reinhart this season. 

[sabrefanday1]

Watched Philly/Vegas yesterday...I can see why Philly beat us...they out played Vegas and as much as I hate to say this, Torts was cool and has the team playing good, hard hockey. If only the Sabres played with half as much itensity...

Edited November 19, 2023 by sabrefanday1

[bob_sauve28]

😱

 

[Zamboni]

Two sides to every story. If true, that idiot should be out of the league for good. The league will be a better place without him.

[Curt]

18 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

Two sides to every story. If true, that idiot should be out of the league for good. The league will be a better place without him.

Not that I condone domestic violence, but what would be the justification for banning someone from a job based on something they did unrelated to the job?

[Stoner]

35 minutes ago, Curt said:

Not that I condone domestic violence, but what would be the justification for banning someone from a job based on something they did unrelated to the job?

2023 says hello.

[Wyldnwoody44]

41 minutes ago, Curt said:

Not that I condone domestic violence, but what would be the justification for banning someone from a job based on something they did unrelated to the job?

Good question. 

The whole millions of dollars thing to be a role model and not a shitbag. 

But at the same time, it does bring up a decent question. 

[Weave]

55 minutes ago, Curt said:

Not that I condone domestic violence, but what would be the justification for banning someone from a job based on something they did unrelated to the job?

No organization in the world wants to be viewed as tolerating that sort of behavior.  That is tons of justification right there.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

2023 says hello.

Yeah, I get that, but I don’t totally get it.  You know?

1 hour ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Good question. 

The whole millions of dollars thing to be a role model and not a shitbag. 

But at the same time, it does bring up a decent question. 

I suppose it depends on any specific phrases about “being a role model” type conduct in the CBA.

Especially for an organization that accepts players punching eachother in the face as “part of the game”, an outright banning for something like this is a tough moral hardline to justify.  In my eyes at least.

1 hour ago, Weave said:

No organization in the world wants to be viewed as tolerating that sort of behavior.  That is tons of justification right there.

A very poor justification, in my opinion.  Issue public statements denouncing the behavior, get him help with therapy or whatever he needs help with.  Show some regard for him as a human being instead of simply discarding him, like some people call for.

 

If you guys can’t tell, I’m not a big fan of cancel culture type stuff in general.  In most cases I don’t think it does the world any good.  It’s easy to discard and denounce people.  It’s much harder to make a positive impact on the world.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Curt

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

No organization in the world wants to be viewed as tolerating that sort of behavior.  That is tons of justification right there.

So unless you jettison someone from his job, you are tolerating the behavior?

It's an easier sell when it comes to "canceling" someone with millions of dollars. Lucic would be fine. Should an architect convicted of domestic violence similarly be fired and prevented from practicing his or her trade? And why stop there? Why should that person ever be employed again in any job?

That would never happen. We just hold professional athletes to a higher standard. It's not fair.

[LTS]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

Not that I condone domestic violence, but what would be the justification for banning someone from a job based on something they did unrelated to the job?

If someone demonstrates the potential to engage in that kind of behavior, do you want it in your organization?  Not even just hockey.

3 minutes ago, Curt said:

Yeah, I get that, but I don’t totally get it.  You know?

I suppose it depends on any specific phrases about “being a role model” type conduct in the CBA.

Especially for an organization that accepts players punching eachother in the face as “part of the game”, an outright banning for something like this is a tough moral hardline to justify.  In my eyes at least.

A very poor justification, in my opinion.  Issue public statements denouncing the behavior, get him help with therapy or whatever he needs help with.  Show some regard for him as a human being instead of simply discarding him, like some people call for.

 

If you guys can’t tell, I’m not a big fan of cancel culture.  I don’t think it does the world any good.  It’s easy to discard and denounce people.  It’s much harder to make a positive impact on the world.

Cancel culture would be if he said something someone disagreed with.  Assaulting another human being is not that. It's easy to discard and denounce people like that because they are scum. I think people should be better with their words and how they treat others, but words are just words. Physical altercations on the other hand are much more than that. They are a direct assault on the personal security everyone should enjoy. It is much harder to make a positive impact in the world. Most people prefer to look at others and analyze them and tear them down.  Not many want to engage in introspection and apply the same criteria.

I'm not going to make snide comments on Lucic because there is a victim in this scenario and making light of it, in my opinion, is disrespecting the other party impacted. 

 

[LTS]

2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

So unless you jettison someone from his job, you are tolerating the behavior?

It's an easier sell when it comes to "canceling" someone with millions of dollars. Lucic would be fine. Should an architect convicted of domestic violence similarly be fired and prevented from practicing his or her trade? And why stop there? Why should that person ever be employed again in any job?

That would never happen. We just hold professional athletes to a higher standard. It's not fair.

Yes. 100% of the time, every time, without question.  It's not an athlete standard.  I wouldn't work with someone who engaged in that behavior. If I was managing someone like that I would want them out from under me, out of the company.  They are an HR nightmare waiting to happen.

Do they work again? Not my problem.  They can go get themselves all the help they need and hope someone gives them a chance. The fear of consequences should weight into decisions to engage in violence. 

[Weave]

14 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

So unless you jettison someone from his job, you are tolerating the behavior?

It's an easier sell when it comes to "canceling" someone with millions of dollars. Lucic would be fine. Should an architect convicted of domestic violence similarly be fired and prevented from practicing his or her trade? And why stop there? Why should that person ever be employed again in any job?

That would never happen. We just hold professional athletes to a higher standard. It's not fair.

First, I’m not making judgement on whether that response is right or wrong, I’m just stating the reality.

2nd for an organization, the public pushback is potentially millions of dollars in net affect.  Serious business implications.  Even organizations that would want to support an employee with these allegations wouldn’t risk that kind of impact.

 

 

12 minutes ago, LTS said:

Yes. 100% of the time, every time, without question.  It's not an athlete standard.  I wouldn't work with someone who engaged in that behavior. If I was managing someone like that I would want them out from under me, out of the company.  They are an HR nightmare waiting to happen.

Do they work again? Not my problem.  They can go get themselves all the help they need and hope someone gives them a chance. The fear of consequences should weight into decisions to engage in violence. 

And there is this as well. 

[LabattBlue]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

Not that I condone domestic violence, but what would be the justification for banning someone from a job based on something they did unrelated to the job?

Trevor Bauer & DeShaun Watson say hello.  

[Curt]

10 minutes ago, LTS said:

If someone demonstrates the potential to engage in that kind of behavior, do you want it in your organization?  Not even just hockey.

Cancel culture would be if he said something someone disagreed with.  Assaulting another human being is not that. It's easy to discard and denounce people like that because they are scum. I think people should be better with their words and how they treat others, but words are just words. Physical altercations on the other hand are much more than that. They are a direct assault on the personal security everyone should enjoy. It is much harder to make a positive impact in the world. Most people prefer to look at others and analyze them and tear them down.  Not many want to engage in introspection and apply the same criteria.

I'm not going to make snide comments on Lucic because there is a victim in this scenario and making light of it, in my opinion, is disrespecting the other party impacted. 

 

My definition of cancel culture differs slightly from your but that’s mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I’d argue that, while his actions were an assault on public security, banning him from the NHL doesn’t improve public security.  It would just be a BS, low effort PR move on the NHL’s part.

In the case of someone who does something like this, domestic violence, if you are in favor of revoking their ability to work, you probably should just be in favor of a long prison sentence for them, no?  How is someone supposed to get help/improve themselves while they are blackballed from working?

[Curt]

18 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

Trevor Bauer & DeShaun Watson say hello.  

1) Like I said earlier, if any contractual clauses are violated, then I’m fine with the repercussions layed out by them.

2) I’m well aware that blackballing/cancelling can happen.  That’s my whole point.

3) Watson was not blackballed.  In fact, in the middle of a known investigation, he was given a huge contract.  He was suspended for violation of part of his contract, served his suspension, and went back to work.  This case was handled in a proper way, as far as I know, in my opinion.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Curt

[Hank]

I'll say it again. If you're child's role model is a professional athlete you've failed as a parent. 

[steveoath]

3 hours ago, Curt said:

Not that I condone domestic violence, but what would be the justification for banning someone from a job based on something they did unrelated to the job?

In my job (teaching) you would be sacked. There is a contract clause about conduct outside of work. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by steveoath

[Buffalonill]

17 minutes ago, Hank said:

I'll say it again. If you're child's role model is a professional athlete you've failed as a parent. 

[Curt]

35 minutes ago, steveoath said:

In my job (teaching) you would be sacked. There is a contract clause about conduct outside of work. 

That makes sense.  People are leaving their children in your care.  I understand why that clause is in place.