Around the League 2019-20 Pt. 2

[Telos]

A joke that you and your buddies have probably made a million times to each other.

It is pretty comical that Milbury is gone for what he said, yet Montresz Harrell has had zero happen to him, over 24 hours since his comments to Luka Doncic.

What a time to be alive.

It is one thing to say it to your buddies and another to say it on air to millions. Also, it is just a straw that broke the camel's back sort of thing. It isn't so much this incident, it is a collection of decades worth of comments that culminated in this comment being enough to get his dumbass off the air. His days were numbered regardless.

 

[psych3man]

It is one thing to say it to your buddies and another to say it on air to millions. Also, it is just a straw that broke the camel's back sort of thing. It isn't so much this incident, it is a collection of decades worth of comments that culminated in this comment being enough to get his dumbass off the air. His days were numbered regardless.

I hate the SOB and I'm glad he's gone.
But I don't think anyone should get fired for saying the sky is blue.

 

[Telos]

I hate the SOB and I'm glad he's gone.
But I don't think anyone should get fired for saying the sky is blue.

It is all about precedent. If you let him get away with that and someone next says that the guys don't have the distraction of "t&a" and then there will be those arguing what the difference is and the other side arguing about the objectification of the logical equivalency. It opens the doors to many other arguments rather than cutting it off right now.

He didn't say the sky is blue, he said that women are a distraction and it is good that they aren't around the NHL players, even though there is no rule that a woman cannot be apart of a NHL team, or league officiating, or the press that follows and interviews said players and sport. It isn't a thing to say. It is objectifying and exclusionary when there is nothing that said they are mandatorily excluded.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It is all about precedent. If you let him get away with that and someone next says that the guys don't have the distraction of "t&a" and then there will be those arguing what the difference is and the other side arguing about the objectification of the logical equivalency. It opens the doors to many other arguments rather than cutting it off right now.

He didn't say the sky is blue, he said that women are a distraction and it is good that they aren't around the NHL players, even though there is no rule that a woman cannot be apart of a NHL team, or league officiating, or the press that follows and interviews said players and sport. It isn't a thing to say. It is objectifying and exclusionary when there is nothing that said they are mandatorily excluded.

Especially given how many women are involved in the sport at all levels now. I don't understand why people are so shocked that you can't just say whatever you want on the air to millions of people. You can't have a 'hockey is for everyone' movement in one breath and then have one yahoo saying 'except for women, thank goodness they're not here' on the air

But regardless of how anyone feels about the interpretation of comments--how can anyone stick up for Mike f***ing Milbury? The guy has dug his own grave in this game 100 times over. Good riddance.

 

[KINGS17]

It is all about precedent. If you let him get away with that and someone next says that the guys don't have the distraction of "t&a" and then there will be those arguing what the difference is and the other side arguing about the objectification of the logical equivalency. It opens the doors to many other arguments rather than cutting it off right now.

He didn't say the sky is blue, he said that women are a distraction and it is good that they aren't around the NHL players, even though there is no rule that a woman cannot be apart of a NHL team, or league officiating, or the press that follows and interviews said players and sport. It isn't a thing to say. It is objectifying and exclusionary when there is nothing that said they are mandatorily excluded.

I think there is a difference between vulgarity (like t&a) which would not be appropriate for kids watching the broadcast, and what Milbury said in this case. I think we are all smart enough to know the difference.

It's pretty well known that many clubs sequester their players in a hotel even when they are at home during the playoffs. Milbury simply should have used the word family and mentioned this is often the case.

Milbury is not a good commentator, and should have been let go for that reason alone.

 

[KINGS17]

Especially given how many women are involved in the sport at all levels now. I don't understand why people are so shocked that you can't just say whatever you want on the air to millions of people. You can't have a 'hockey is for everyone' movement in one breath and then have one yahoo saying 'except for women, thank goodness they're not here' on the air

But regardless of how anyone feels about the interpretation of comments--how can anyone stick up for Mike f***ing Milbury? The guy has dug his own grave in this game 100 times over. Good riddance.

True, and while what NBC has done will be cheered, I think it sucks they are hiding behind the cloak of political correctness remove Milbury. It's something they should have thought of long ago, and shows their own ineptitude.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I think there is a difference between vulgarity (like t&a) which would not be appropriate for kids watching the broadcast, and what Milbury said in this case. I think we are all smart enough to know the difference.

It's pretty well known that many clubs sequester their players in a hotel even when they are at home during the playoffs. Milbury simply should have used the word family and mentioned this is often the case.

Milbury is not a good commentator, and should have been let go for that reason alone.

Here are his comments:



He didn't have to say anything at all. He just couldn't even get out of his own way and couldn't wait to point out it was great there were no women around. He could have said no outside distractions, there's more focus, etc, but he turned specifically to women.

No, it's not vulgarity, it's an HR thing at best, like JR's comments. You can't just insult an entire class of people who are employed by your very same organization. Think of it as HR or even PR if you're thinking of the public angle rather than PC. No company would condone that.

Though I 100% agree it's stupid to have waited even this long, haha.

 

[KINGS17]

Here are his comments:



He didn't have to say anything at all. He just couldn't even get out of his own way and couldn't wait to point out it was great there were no women around. He could have said no outside distractions, there's more focus, etc, but he turned specifically to women.

No, it's not vulgarity, it's an HR thing at best, like JR's comments. You can't just insult an entire class of people who are employed by your very same organization. Think of it as HR or even PR if you're thinking of the public angle rather than PC. No company would condone that.

Though I 100% agree it's stupid to have waited even this long, haha.

I wouldn't compare what Milbury said to what Roenick said about Tappen. Equating those two remarks isn't fair to Milbury.

 

[Telos]

I think there is a difference between vulgarity (like t&a) which would not be appropriate for kids watching the broadcast, and what Milbury said in this case. I think we are all smart enough to know the difference.

It's pretty well known that many clubs sequester their players in a hotel even when they are at home during the playoffs. Milbury simply should have used the word family and mentioned this is often the case.

Milbury is not a good commentator, and should have been let go for that reason alone.

I feel like the fact that we are having this conversation means the opposite (not against you, but in general on these boards). The bottom line is there are likely women there, there is nothing that says women can't be there, and it is insulting to both genders to insinuate that neither can do their jobs due to the distraction. This isn't about a woman on the sidewalk causing a guy to rubberneck into an accident. They are playing for the Stanley Cup, are any of the players missing their shots because a woman is in their vicinity? It is nearly laughable to consider, but then given how schoolyard-toddler the logic is, I doubt it could even be perceived as funny. It's just dumb, especially to say to an audience that includes women that love hockey at all ages.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I wouldn't compare what Milbury said to what Roenick said about Tappen. Equating those two remarks isn't fair to Milbury.

Definitely very different remarks but similar in what I'm saying re: creating a hostile workplace/HR stuff via public airing.

 

[BigKing]

A joke that you and your buddies have probably made a million times to each other.

It is pretty comical that Milbury is gone for what he said, yet Montresz Harrell has had zero happen to him, over 24 hours since his comments to Luka Doncic.

What a time to be alive.

Just read up on the Doncic incident. A lack of a real response from the NBA will just be another indicator about how all of this shit is just for show and is just corporations having to pretend to care about whatever social cause is the hot thing at the moment. We can just go ahead and file this along with Desean Jackson's insane anti-Semitic comments that led to nothing happening as well and barely a peep from other NFL players condemning it.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Just read up on the Doncic incident. A lack of a real response from the NBA will just be another indicator about how all of this shit is just for show and is just corporations having to pretend to care about whatever social cause is the hot thing at the moment. We can just go ahead and file this along with Desean Jackson's insane anti-Semitic comments that led to nothing happening as well and barely a peep from other NFL players condemning it.

Can't we just agree that people being shitty people should be condemned? Why is this so difficult/political? When did "not being a terrible human being" become a 'social cause?' Can we also agree that you're more likely to be fired from your job if you suck at it AND you're a shitty person publicly?

The NBA not addressing racist trash talk is foolhardy and should get more fire. That's a different organization, yet I'd expect to hear more soon. If they don't, them doing it wrong doesn't mean anything other than they're doing it wrong.

Milbury sucks at his job anyway and has been a public douche for the last time.

Desean jackson WAS fined by the team, further punished, and donated a significant amount to the Jewish community AND has been asked to support his actions/words with further actions.

Jackson Penalized For Anti-Semitic Post | FOX Sports

Who sticks up for this shit? Are there people out there actually feeling sorry for Milbury?

Sure--in the end maybe it's all for show because they're public figures and at the end of the day go behind closed doors and put on their grand wizard regalia. I don't know what's in people's heart-of-hearts. But I can damn sure speak up if some dickwad like Milbury is spewing disinclusiveness on a massively public platform especially with a spotted history like he has. It's not a random bad choice of words/mistake in his case.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The Islanders take the Flyers out if the Flyers don't show up. You know the Islanders will give the effort, but I question whether or not they have enough to take a series from someone else.

The Isles might take them out anyway, but especially if the Flyers get 0 goals from Konecny, Couturier, Giroux, and JVR. If that continues, the Isles will probably win in 4.

The Isles can beat anyone, but if you've got talent, you can take advantage of their inconsistent offense. Not that the Flyers played anyone, or didn't struggle some with who they did play, but the Islanders played the Panthers and Caps. The Panthers are a joke, with Bob being a disaster. The Caps have had issues with Holtby all year, and they never seemed to really have "it" at any point. Same thing last year, where they swept a Penguins team that looked done(and they looked done again this year), and then were themselves swept by Carolina.

 

[tny760]

Just read up on the Doncic incident. A lack of a real response from the NBA will just be another indicator about how all of this shit is just for show and is just corporations having to pretend to care about whatever social cause is the hot thing at the moment. We can just go ahead and file this along with Desean Jackson's insane anti-Semitic comments that led to nothing happening as well and barely a peep from other NFL players condemning it.

nah it's cool bro, montrezl said he didn't mean it racially......

all milbury has to say is he didn't mean it sexually. same same.

 

[BigKing]

Can't we just agree that people being shitty people should be condemned? Why is this so difficult/political? When did "not being a terrible human being" become a 'social cause?' Can we also agree that you're more likely to be fired from your job if you suck at it AND you're a shitty person publicly?

The NBA not addressing racist trash talk is foolhardy and should get more fire. That's a different organization, yet I'd expect to hear more soon. If they don't, them doing it wrong doesn't mean anything other than they're doing it wrong.

Milbury sucks at his job anyway and has been a public douche for the last time.

Desean jackson WAS fined by the team, further punished, and donated a significant amount to the Jewish community AND has been asked to support his actions/words with further actions.

Jackson Penalized For Anti-Semitic Post | FOX Sports

Who sticks up for this shit? Are there people out there actually feeling sorry for Milbury?

Sure--in the end maybe it's all for show because they're public figures and at the end of the day go behind closed doors and put on their grand wizard regalia. I don't know what's in people's heart-of-hearts. But I can damn sure speak up if some dickwad like Milbury is spewing disinclusiveness on a massively public platform especially with a spotted history like he has. It's not a random bad choice of words/mistake in his case.

A white NFL player would be suspended and released (if he is a scrub) if he said something similar to Jackson but pointed at African Americans.

Hell, Brees was eviscerated for his kneeling comment by like the entire league but barely a peep from anyone about Jackson.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

A white NFL player would be suspended and released (if he is a scrub) if he said something similar to Jackson but pointed at African Americans.

Hell, Brees was eviscerated for his kneeling comment by like the entire league but barely a peep from anyone about Jackson.

If you missed the Jackson stuff, you have your eyes willfully closed. I literally posted a link. There was plenty of noise.

Also, let's not pretend the former doesn't happen: Riley Cooper vows apology to black teammates after slur

And let's be sure to distinguish between public reprimand and actual organizational discipline, as well as between leagues. Drew Brees getting yelled at by a bunch of people is different from an actual suspension or firing.

I'm not here to defend the NFL or NBA though, they have their own major sets of issues. Invoking different leagues doesn't do anything. NHL has been consistent on their line.

This is a lot more rebuffing than I expected about Mike f***ing Milbury, though. Wow.

 

[Bandit]

If you missed the Jackson stuff, you have your eyes willfully closed. I literally posted a link. There was plenty of noise.

Also, let's not pretend the former doesn't happen: Riley Cooper vows apology to black teammates after slur

And let's be sure to distinguish between public reprimand and actual organizational discipline, as well as between leagues.

I'm not here to defend the NFL or NBA though, they have their own major sets of issues. Invoking different leagues doesn't do anything. NHL has been consistent on their line.

This is a lot more rebuffing than I expected about Mike f***ing Milbury, though. Wow.

We’ve got a long way to go before everyone learns to paint with all the colors of the f***in wind...

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

We’ve got a long way to go before everyone learns to paint with all the colors of the f***in wind...

I frankly just don't think that's even the point. I'm not here to lecture anyone on being woke. I'm only pointing out that any employer, especially one with an audience of many millions, isn't going to let a guy with a shitty history rip a protected class. It's nothing to do with SJW-ing or whatever euphemism people want to use for "I want to be an asshole in public with no repercussions," it's just about delivering a consistent message and making sure your employees are comfortable.

 

[Bandit]

I frankly just don't think that's even the point. I'm not here to lecture anyone on being woke. I'm only pointing out that any employer, especially one with an audience of many millions, isn't going to let a guy with a shitty history rip a protected class. It's nothing to do with SJW-ing or whatever euphemism people want to use for "I want to be an asshole in public with no repercussions," it's just about delivering a consistent message and making sure your employees are comfortable.

I dunno, being “woke” and being the kind of person who realizes you can no longer be a shitheel just for yuks kinda go hand in hand imo, but potato tomato.

 

[KingsHockey24]

Man.. we gave Erik Cernak away for nothing.

 

[Bandit]

Man.. we gave Erik Cernak away for nothing.

Why stop there? We gave away Ray Borque for nothing...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I’m sure a good number of those coaches found new gigs, and the unemployed ones will be back behind an NHL bench sooner than later.

Today LeBrun talked about the likely names available for coaching gigs, and it’s the familiar names with Gallant and Babcock leading the way and the likes of John Stevens and Mike Yeo also being potential coaching candidates.

 

[Chruceg]

In regards to Milbury I think there is a key argument being missed on the right. The arguments put forth by the members of the right on this board have three key arguemnts which I have listed below.

1. Inconsistent double standards (Herby, post 1695; BigKing, post 1715)
2. The statment is accurate (psych3man, post 1702; KINGS17, post 1705)
3. The point is generally understood by the populace (Herby, post 1695)

The left members of this board are able to effectively argue each of these points on an individual basis with the following arguments, respectively.

1. The double standard is irrelevant. What other organizations do shouldn't drive the argument if the fundamental position is correct. (Raccoon Jesus, posts 1712 & 1716)
2. There is a standard which already exists that says those types of comments are unacceptable. And because society has moved far enough in this direction, the league is actively pursing that decision.Because the leauge seems to have every intent to pursue their agenda, the accuracy of the statement is irrelevent. (Telos, post 1703; Raccoon Jesus, post 1712)
3. Regardless of whether or not people feel a way about any idea the goal of the league is to pursue a landscape where these ideas aren't normative as their very existence causes problems. (Raccoon Jesus, posts 1707 & 1712)

Further, the left makes an additional fair point that Milbury is a moron who deserves it because he is a moron. (Let me be very clear that I would use MUCH harsher language to describe Milbury. I strongly feel that his hockey strategy is outdated and I am sincerely disappointed when I have to listen to his nonsense.)

Before I get into my argument please allow me to say two more things. First that I have enormous respect for all the posters in this discussion. I have been reading all of you for quite some time. (I got Herby confused with Tikkanen for the longest time. I remember when Telos took over for Tony SCV as mod. Raccoon Jesus' opinions on the Kings are most closely aligned with my own. There is a non-insignifcant part of me that enjoys the fighting and enforcement in hockey that BigKing so fervently endorses. Sorry psych3man ... I don't know you very well.) Second, that if I mis-represented any of anyone's points please let me know and I will be happy to edit this post.

The fact that each argument taken individually on the left fairly rebuts the arguments on the right is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the hypothetically correct ideal they are pursuing hasn't been confirmed as "better". Let me explain. The entire argument of the left is that the movement of society over the past several years is a good one regardless of any effects it may have. Pursuing kindness and politeness at all costs, taking out any and all offensive language/imagery from society, the assertion that any and all inequality is the result of ingrained societal teachings, etc. is at best a hopeful endeavor without fully considering the consequences of what may occur. Making the argument that Milbury saying women are a distraction encourages exclusion and because of that it should not be allowed has _not_ been verified as true. It is an as of yet unproven theory that this betters society. It is fair that you should be kind to people. It is fair that no one should be unfairly excluded from groups. I have yet to see anyone say that when they heard Milbury make his comments that they decided they shouldn't watch hockey. What I have seen is people argue that because he made those comments someone could potentially have been offended by the comment or choose to not watch hockey. Let's be honest here ... this is a group of 20 to 29 year old men with money to burn, who regularly get hammered after games, who have large groups of women pursuing them. Is it possible that a woman could potentially become a distraction in this situation? Absolutely. Does describing that situation exclude people? If so, how?

Also, as much as I can't stand Milbury, he is a person who played hockey at a professional level, coached hockey at a professional level, and gm'ed hockey at a professional level. He absolutely has an understanding of what hockey players go through. I would also argue that Milbury was actively checking himself in this statement. It is a faux pas to mention sexual conduct in polite society. He was actively skirting the issue. I am sure that everyone who listened to what he said understood that what he _meant_ was that there were no women being problems sexually. And becuase of my prior comment he is absolutely aware of what hockey players go through. Why is his interpretation of what hockey players go through invalid? If people who listen to it agree with it and understand it, why is their understanding considered offensive? If the potential interpration of his understanding could cause offense, why can't telling him his interpretation is incorrect cause him offense? What is the scope of offense one needs to understand in order to define whether or not what someone says is correct or not?

The final point I would like to make is that Milbury's crap analysis is the very reason why we need to defend him. When you disagree with something ideologically it is important that you defend the people who you don't like.

I realize this is going to cause a lot of comments. I would be willing to take any comments off line.

(I have been writing this for three hours and am now drunk. Also, my wife who proofread is also drunk at this point.)

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

In regards to Milbury I think there is a key argument being missed on the right. The arguments put forth by the members of the right on this board have three key arguemnts which I have listed below.

1. Inconsistent double standards (Herby, post 1695; BigKing, post 1715)
2. The statment is accurate (psych3man, post 1702; KINGS17, post 1705)
3. The point is generally understood by the populace (Herby, post 1695)

The left members of this board are able to effectively argue each of these points on an individual basis with the following arguments, respectively.

1. The double standard is irrelevant. What other organizations do shouldn't drive the argument if the fundamental position is correct. (Raccoon Jesus, posts 1712 & 1716)
2. There is a standard which already exists that says those types of comments are unacceptable. And because society has moved far enough in this direction, the league is actively pursing that decision.Because the leauge seems to have every intent to pursue their agenda, the accuracy of the statement is irrelevent. (Telos, post 1703; Raccoon Jesus, post 1712)
3. Regardless of whether or not people feel a way about any idea the goal of the league is to pursue a landscape where these ideas aren't normative as their very existence causes problems. (Raccoon Jesus, posts 1707 & 1712)

Further, the left makes an additional fair point that Milbury is a moron who deserves it because he is a moron. (Let me be very clear that I would use MUCH harsher language to describe Milbury. I strongly feel that his hockey strategy is outdated and I am sincerely disappointed when I have to listen to his nonsense.)

Before I get into my argument please allow me to say two more things. First that I have enormous respect for all the posters in this discussion. I have been reading all of you for quite some time. (I got Herby confused with Tikkanen for the longest time. I remember when Telos took over for Tony SCV as mod. Raccoon Jesus' opinions on the Kings are most closely aligned with my own. There is a non-insignifcant part of me that enjoys the fighting and enforcement in hockey that BigKing so fervently endorses. Sorry psych3man ... I don't know you very well.) Second, that if I mis-represented any of anyone's points please let me know and I will be happy to edit this post.

The fact that each argument taken individually on the left fairly rebuts the arguments on the right is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the hypothetically correct ideal they are pursuing hasn't been confirmed as "better". Let me explain. The entire argument of the left is that the movement of society over the past several years is a good one regardless of any effects it may have. Pursuing kindness and politeness at all costs, taking out any and all offensive language/imagery from society, the assertion that any and all inequality is the result of ingrained societal teachings, etc. is at best a hopeful endeavor without fully considering the consequences of what may occur. Making the argument that Milbury saying women are a distraction encourages exclusion and because of that it should not be allowed has _not_ been verified as true. It is an as of yet unproven theory that this betters society. It is fair that you should be kind to people. It is fair that no one should be unfairly excluded from groups. I have yet to see anyone say that when they heard Milbury make his comments that they decided they shouldn't watch hockey. What I have seen is people argue that because he made those comments someone could potentially have been offended by the comment or choose to not watch hockey. Let's be honest here ... this is a group of 20 to 29 year old men with money to burn, who regularly get hammered after games, who have large groups of women pursuing them. Is it possible that a woman could potentially become a distraction in this situation? Absolutely. Does describing that situation exclude people? If so, how?

Also, as much as I can't stand Milbury, he is a person who played hockey at a professional level, coached hockey at a professional level, and gm'ed hockey at a professional level. He absolutely has an understanding of what hockey players go through. I would also argue that Milbury was actively checking himself in this statement. It is a faux pas to mention sexual conduct in polite society. He was actively skirting the issue. I am sure that everyone who listened to what he said understood that what he _meant_ was that there were no women being problems sexually. And becuase of my prior comment he is absolutely aware of what hockey players go through. Why is his interpretation of what hockey players go through invalid? If people who listen to it agree with it and understand it, why is their understanding considered offensive? If the potential interpration of his understanding could cause offense, why can't telling him his interpretation is incorrect cause him offense? What is the scope of offense one needs to understand in order to define whether or not what someone says is correct or not?

The final point I would like to make is that Milbury's crap analysis is the very reason why we need to defend him. When you disagree with something ideologically it is important that you defend the people who you don't like.

I realize this is going to cause a lot of comments. I would be willing to take any comments off line.

(I have been writing this for three hours and am now drunk. Also, my wife who proofread is also drunk at this point.)

I appreciate this especially with the drinks behind it because I think you've been very fair to everyone here.

But--let me make it simpler than before. I went out of my way to not slippery-slope leftist argument it. The NHL's current philosophy is 'hockey is for everyone.' They've taken steps in these very playoffs to promote equality. You may not have heard people say Milbury's comments made people decide they wouldn't watch hockey but that's not the core of the argument--plenty of female journalists have been vocal about it, and with women in every position from TV analyst to NHL coaching for a playoff team (Arizona Coyotes), Milbury's comments are insulting and reductive to the abilities of women to be anything but puck bunnies.

If you're employing Kathryn Tappen, AJ Mleczko, and Kendall Coyne Schofield, the last thing you need is Milbury mouthing off as if he's better than them and thank goodness they're not here.

And I say this--generally speaking--as a guy who appreciates Milbury and JR for being a little spicy and kind of off their rockers.

 

[KINGS17]

I feel like the fact that we are having this conversation means the opposite (not against you, but in general on these boards). The bottom line is there are likely women there, there is nothing that says women can't be there, and it is insulting to both genders to insinuate that neither can do their jobs due to the distraction. This isn't about a woman on the sidewalk causing a guy to rubberneck into an accident. They are playing for the Stanley Cup, are any of the players missing their shots because a woman is in their vicinity? It is nearly laughable to consider, but then given how schoolyard-toddler the logic is, I doubt it could even be perceived as funny. It's just dumb, especially to say to an audience that includes women that love hockey at all ages.

Of course women can be inside the bubble. They have jobs to do just like anyone else. Are you so sure Milbury was referring to all women, or just the girlfriends or wives of the players?