Around the NHL 2023-24 Season

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

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?

Noone is revoking their ability to work.  
However, the accused has surely limited the number of employers that would be willing to employ them.

Im all for second chances.  I am not at all willing to risk my livelihood, or my business to offer it to them. And I’m surely going to understand any other organization that feels likewise.

And frankly, Lucic in particular won’t suffer financially from this unless he’s made a bunch of other poor choices along the way.  Sucks to be him, then.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Weave

[Curt]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

Noone is revoking their ability to work.  
However, the accused has surely limited the number of employers that would be willing to employ them.

Im all for second chances.  I am not at all willing to risk my livelihood, or my business to offer it to them.

And frankly, Lucic in particular won’t suffer financially from this unless he’s made a bunch of other poor choices along the way.  Sucks to be him, then.

I was responding to a hypothetical scenario where Lucic is banned by the NHL, which he won’t be.  I was just arguing that a banning would not be helpful to anyone.

There is no reason that allowing Lucic to continue as an NHL player should be a risk to the NHL’s livelihood or business.

[Weave]

13 minutes ago, Curt said:

I was responding to a hypothetical scenario where Lucic is banned by the NHL, which he won’t be.  I was just arguing that a banning would not be helpful to anyone.

There is no reason that allowing Lucic to continue as an NHL player should be a risk to the NHL’s livelihood or business.

Banning Lucic would absolutely be helpful to the NHL, who does not want any part of being associated with an accused domestic violence offender.  
 

And there is absolutely risk to the NHLs business, and in the NHLs best interest to distance themselves pronto.

[LTS]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

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?

His actions were not an assault on public security. They were allegedly an assault on his spouse. Banning him from the NHL demonstrates consequences to his actions away from the game.  The criminal justice system can demonstrate consequences to his actions in the courts.

I am in favor of revoking their ability to work for me or with me, yes. Everyone has their own standards. If someone else wants to give him a shot then that's great for them. If the person seeks help and turns their life around, then great. At some point if I were close enough to the situation, I might actually give them another chance. But this isn't about a second chance, this is about messing up your first chance. It takes a conscious decision to assault another human being especially how it was described.

Some people get angry when they drink. Those people should be told that and they should stop drinking before their anger boils over. I've been WAY too close to that situation in my life. If a person who tends to rage when they drink won't stop drinking I'm 100% getting away from that.

[Porous Five Hole]

3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

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.

I don’t agree and while it isn’t domestic violence... If I am convicted of a DWI, I lose my job. That is a consequence of my own actions. My employer is not canceling me.  

 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Banning Lucic would absolutely be helpful to the NHL, who does not want any part of being associated with an accused domestic violence offender.  
 

And there is absolutely risk to the NHLs business, and in the NHLs best interest to distance themselves pronto.

Hmm, pronto?  Before any legal conclusions have been come to?  All it takes is to be accused in order to be banned for life?

[Curt]

5 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

I don’t agree and while it isn’t domestic violence... If I am convicted of a DWI, I lose my job. That is a consequence of my own actions. My employer is not canceling me.  

 

If being convicted of a DWI violates already established conditions of your employment, then that is not objectionable.

1 hour ago, LTS said:

His actions were not an assault on public security. They were allegedly an assault on his spouse. Banning him from the NHL demonstrates consequences to his actions away from the game.  The criminal justice system can demonstrate consequences to his actions in the courts.

I am in favor of revoking their ability to work for me or with me, yes. Everyone has their own standards. If someone else wants to give him a shot then that's great for them. If the person seeks help and turns their life around, then great. At some point if I were close enough to the situation, I might actually give them another chance. But this isn't about a second chance, this is about messing up your first chance. It takes a conscious decision to assault another human being especially how it was described.

Some people get angry when they drink. Those people should be told that and they should stop drinking before their anger boils over. I've been WAY too close to that situation in my life. If a person who tends to rage when they drink won't stop drinking I'm 100% getting away from that.

How does someone get a second chance in the NHL if they are banned for life?

[Porous Five Hole]

7 minutes ago, Curt said:

If being convicted of a DWI violates already established conditions of your employment, then that is not objectionable.

Correct, and the NHL/NHLPA has the same thing. 

Article 18-A of the League’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, which grants the commissioner authority to impose discipline on a player who “has been or is guilty of [off-ice] conduct (whether during or outside the playing season) that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League[.]”

Criminal activity of all kinds are covered.  It is bad for the business of the league.

18-A is a mutual understanding between the league and the players. No one is being canceled so much as Lucic is suffering consequences of his own actions.  

[Curt]

7 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Correct, and the NHL/NHLPA has the same thing. 

Article 18-A of the League’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, which grants the commissioner authority to impose discipline on a player who “has been or is guilty of [off-ice] conduct (whether during or outside the playing season) that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League[.]”

Criminal activity of all kinds are covered.  It is bad for the business of the league.

18-A is a mutual understanding between the league and the players. No one is being canceled so much as Lucic is suffering consequences of his own actions.  

That’s totally fine.  I never said that Lucic should face zero league repercussions.  I assumed that there was a clause like that as part of the players’ contracts.

What I objected to was people saying that he should be banned for life.

[Weave]

37 minutes ago, Curt said:

 

What I objected to was people saying that he should be banned for life.

Which is something the league has both the authority and incentive to do.

Realistically, the league won’t have to, and likely won’t because they don’t have to make that decision. He’ll sit the rest of this season while it plays out in the justice system.  Boston will quietly not offer to have him come back next season.  Noone else will offer him a contract because he sucks, and because of the optics of this. And he’ll retire a disgraced Bruin.

[steveoath]

Laine a healthy scratch. 

[Flashsabre]

1 hour ago, steveoath said:

Laine a healthy scratch. 

Pascal Vincent is either going to become a hero or lose his job pretty quick in Columbus. 

[SwampD]

10 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?

Virtually every company everywhere.

[Curt]

51 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Virtually every company everywhere.

“Because everyone is doing it” is not a justification.

I do concede that in some circumstances, things like this make sense, but not for the majority of jobs.

[LTS]

7 hours ago, Curt said:

If being convicted of a DWI violates already established conditions of your employment, then that is not objectionable.

How does someone get a second chance in the NHL if they are banned for life?

Did I say banned for life?  I don't think I did.  If I did I certainly did not mean to. I thought my arguments have been solely about not wanting someone like that where I work or to work around someone like that.

I feel like I even called out if a person in that situation goes through meaningful change they might eventually get to the point where I would want to give them a second chance.  Note that I am saying *I* might want to... I fully accept others might do it sooner.

[shrader]

The guy is 35 years old and a shell of the shell of a hockey player he used to be. He’ll be radioactive moving forward if the story is true. Forget about banning him, no one will touch him anyway. 

[Doohicksie]

3 hours ago, Curt said:

“Because everyone is doing it” is not a justification.

I do concede that in some circumstances, things like this make sense, but not for the majority of jobs.

Lots of jobs do a criminal background check on applicants.  If there are several qualified candidates I would say that it is in the business's best interest to hire the qualified candidate with a clean record over the candidate with a conviction, from a liability standpoint.

[Curt]

7 hours ago, LTS said:

Did I say banned for life?  I don't think I did.  If I did I certainly did not mean to. I thought my arguments have been solely about not wanting someone like that where I work or to work around someone like that.

I feel like I even called out if a person in that situation goes through meaningful change they might eventually get to the point where I would want to give them a second chance.  Note that I am saying *I* might want to... I fully accept others might do it sooner.

Not trying to put words in your mouth.  The original comment w was replying to said that he should be “out of the league for good”, and you seemed to say that you were in favor of “banning” him from the NHL.  Banning sound rather permanent to me.  Did you mean a temporary ban?  As in a suspension?

[LTS]

4 hours ago, Curt said:

Not trying to put words in your mouth.  The original comment w was replying to said that he should be “out of the league for good”, and you seemed to say that you were in favor of “banning” him from the NHL.  Banning sound rather permanent to me.  Did you mean a temporary ban?  As in a suspension?

Right, understand now. The problem with temporary ban or indefinite suspension is that they seem arbitrary. I know they usually have a clause "eligible for re-applying after 1 year" for example. I think he should be out of the league, complete some significant work on cleaning up his life, get off the alcohol, and then let it be possible for re-entry.  I think it should be 2 years minimum assuming he's convicted. Under ANY circumstance he should not be eligible to return until he gets his life cleaned up.

The hurdles are often not high enough, not just in sports.

[kas23]

After the Blackhawks coverup and associated non-apology, this league has an image problem. They should be doing more to deter such behavior. 

[Buffalonill]

1 hour ago, kas23 said:

After the Blackhawks coverup and associated non-apology, this league has an image problem. They should be doing more to deter such behavior. 

When you take away a first round pick for gambling and not rape its a problem. 

And I honestly i think they don't care 

[PerreaultForever]

On 11/19/2023 at 10:30 AM, Weave said:

Banning Lucic would absolutely be helpful to the NHL, who does not want any part of being associated with an accused domestic violence offender.  
 

And there is absolutely risk to the NHLs business, and in the NHLs best interest to distance themselves pronto.

It's really not a big issue because he's at the end of his career anyway. He was only brought in to counter Reaves and Jeannot and maybe play a role of responding to a Tkachuk in the playoffs, but he was on the fringe of even being on the roster so if the NHL wants to grandstand this they pretty much can and they can "make an example" of him with little actual affect on the team or any other teams. If he was a young star it'd be different. 

I don't recall the NHL ever making a big deal over anything off ice. If I remember correctly Sean Burke had a brief suspension with spousal abuse allegations some time ago. The NFL certainly doesn't care after they smooth over immediate optics. I doubt the league does anything. He's on indefinite leave of absence and I imagine that's the end of that. 

Pain meds and alcohol, never a good idea. 

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

When you take away a first round pick for gambling and not rape its a problem. 

And I honestly i think they don't care 

The one explanation I'd have would be that the primary difference was the effect the offenses had against the "league" I don't mean PR, I mean something akin to the sanctity of the game.

Gambling, contractual offenses, and illegal trades/signings all give doubt to the legitimacy of the "game" and the general "fairness" of the league .

What happened with the Blackhawks, while both a heinous act and a PR nightmare doesn't fit into the same category. Effectively the league could/should of fined them far more and potentially looked to force a sale of the team. 

[PerreaultForever]

Here's your Lucic details:

https://www.masslive.com/bruins/2023/11/police-report-gives-details-on-milan-lucic-arrest.html

 

[LabattBlue]

Too bad there is a great MNF matchup tonight.  3 interesting early games…

 

BOS @ TB
EDM @ FL
NYR @ DAL