Around the League 2019-20 Pt. 2

[ru4reals]

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.

Don't even get me started with the NBA. But I'll just keep it to myself or I might have to relieve my duties from HFboards. LOL. But Agree 100%

 

[KINGS17]

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 I strongly feel that his hockey strategy is outdated and I am sincerely disappointed when I have to listen to his nonsense.)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 dunno, pretty good for being drunk.

 

[KINGS17]

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.

Condemnation is such a strong term. Are we to execute Milbury's career in such a way he will never work again?

Do you know Milbury personally? Maybe he is a terrible human being, but maybe he is also kind and thoughtful toward those who mean the most to him.

The guy is a dinosaur when it comes to his theories regarding how the game of hockey should be played. However, I am not ready to condemn him for all times. The man deserved to be reprimanded and fired. No problem with NBC doing it, but he also deserves a chance to reflect and learn something from this experience, and however unlikely his learning something may be, return to work in the game if he earns it.

 

[Telos]

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 your thoughtfulness in your post. The fact that anyone remembers me as a mod is humbling. I was brief in my arguments on this board because I don't want to alienate or light up anyone here. We are all reverent siblings under the same banner and all rooting for the same thing. I respect and welcome the differing opinions on this board, especially those I don't agree with. For example, I haven't agreed with Herby much over the years (although I have a lot more in the most recent few), but I enjoy his posts and perspective, I relished our debates over Mike Richards back in the day, and if he stopped posting I would consider it a great loss to our board.

Most of my posts on the subject were on the mainboard, but I would just say that it is merely a base question of empathy and decency. It has little to do about evolution, the attraction of genders, and the various activities we do that make us human. This has nothing to do with white knighting or pushing left or right values. It has everything to do with the fact that this pathetic excuse of a broadcast is all this sport has of showing itself to the world, and for better or worse, Mike Milbury was an ambassador of the game whose job was showing and communicating this sport to everyone around the world. The women of Team USA and Team Canada are watching this broadcast, and their daughters, and every other woman that aspires to be linked to this sport in some way or just out of pure love of watching the sport. To say to them on the international NBC Stanley Cup broadcast that it is good that women aren't around the players because they'd be a distraction is just purely ignorant and offputting to both genders involved. I am not saying that these young men can't get into trouble, but to insinuate that they are missing shots out there because of women is laughable.

Imagine the reverse and being told your very presence around the people involved with the sport you love is a distraction and your absence from it is a good thing. It is just plain f***ing dumb. To say that these elite athletes would have a hard time playing in the Stanley Cup playoffs is just silly. Regardless if they were involved with anyone recently in any which way, they are still professionals that are expected to do a job like anyone else.

There are women in the game, women can be players in the NHL, they can be owners, managers, coaches, employees of the organizations, or league executives, referees/officials, broadcasters, journalists, on-ice analysts, you name it... To insinuate that their lack of contact with the players is a good thing and that their absence makes it any easier for them to be professionals and do their jobs and play for their dream of winning the Stanley Cup is ludicrous. Of all the postgame interviews I've heard of "I would have hit top corner and won the game if it weren't for the brunette staring at me in row 11, seat 12"... It is literally schoolyard horseshit.

I would defend his right to say his idiotic joke to his friends, under proper context, in the locker room or in private, but it doesn't belong on the international playoff broadcast in front of millions of men and women of all ages. While I am going to skirt by your philosophical argument that being nice or kind doesn't improve society (as my college background is in philosophy and I'd rather not write a dissertation on the subject back and forth), I do believe that we aren't going as far as the maxim of "pursuing kindness and politeness at all costs" to just have enough decency and empathy not to tell all the millions of viewers, especially future women of the sport, that they are a distraction to the players and they play their best hockey without women around.

Nobody is saying this is the most egregious thing ever said or even the most egregious thing Mike Milbury has said, but I am baffled by the droves of posters that are rushing to defend him saying it to literally everyone during a live broadcast during the most important time for our sport. That is why I say that people who are arguing that this is a nothing comment are crazy because he is literally saying it to everyone in the world watching our sport during the highest ratings of the year, not a locker room full of dudes that can give their Beavis and Butthead chuckles. The bottom line is if you let him get away with telling any and all interested in this sport that stupid joke, what precedent does it set and what jokes are to follow?

 

[Telos]

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?

You're reaching pretty far as he didn't say that in the slightest, but I would argue that it wouldn't make it any less of a dumb thing to say. Regardless, if we were to actually entertain the idea and look at the science, a million studies have been done involving the Olympics and sexual activity and 99% of all studies conducted have always concluded that it has no effect whatsoever on athletic performance. It is just a dumbass schoolyard excuse as to why you sucked and missed on your breakaway.

The myth of sex and athletic performance, explained - CNN

 

[kilowatt]

I’m of the mind that we should hold those in positions of power and fame to a higher standard, not a lower one. This isn’t even the first time Milbury has said something stupid and ignorant these playoffs. My political leanings have nothing to do with the fact that hockey is better off without Mike Milbury.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Condemnation is such a strong term. Are we to execute Milbury's career in such a way he will never work again?

Do you know Milbury personally? Maybe he is a terrible human being, but maybe he is also kind and thoughtful toward those who mean the most to him.

The guy is a dinosaur when it comes to his theories regarding how the game of hockey should be played. However, I am not ready to condemn him for all times. The man deserved to be reprimanded and fired. No problem with NBC doing it, but he also deserves a chance to reflect and learn something from this experience, and however unlikely his learning something may be, return to work in the game if he earns it.

I don't think he IS a terrible human being. Note that most of my comments dealt with acting like one publicly. I'm not saying he should be shot out of a cannon or gone forever. You know that I believe people can change and learn, he'll maybe make a learning experience out of this.

I'm willing to admit he's likely forgotten more about hockey than I've ever known of it, and relationships of course go a long way in any business--the dude is amongst the most well connected people around. All of that is valuable. All of it also makes it all the more dangerous when he makes a very public misstep, he's influential.

And let me be very clear I don't think he should be banned from the game forever or anything. He's just taken it one step too far this time and with his history of habitual line-stepping it was hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's a time for reflection for him, that's all. Keep in mind this is what, one week from teeing off on Tuukka Rask for leaving the bubble? He earned his vacation.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Ugh, VGK really showing their experience vs. Van. No sir, I don't like it.

 

[kilowatt]

Ugh, VGK really showing their experience vs. Van. No sir, I don't like it.

I was really hoping Chicago would have enough Cinderella magic to knock them out. I’m not sure who can beat them. Maybe Boston?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I was really hoping Chicago would have enough Cinderella magic to knock them out. I’m not sure who can beat them. Maybe Boston?

Boston is our only hope haha.

It's tough because this is right smack in the middle of VGK's collective prime--all of their best players are 26-28, the perfect convergence of production peak/experience/fitness. Patches and Martinez are a lil older of course. But everyone else is solidly in the win-now window.

 

[kingsfan28]

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

What jr said, not just about Tappen , but Carter and Sharp was way more inappropriate. But still , it falls in line what tv personalities shouldn't say. Now JR's suing the network for wrongful termination because he said it was for his political beliefs, not comments.

 

[KINGS17]

You're reaching pretty far as he didn't say that in the slightest, but I would argue that it wouldn't make it any less of a dumb thing to say. Regardless, if we were to actually entertain the idea and look at the science, a million studies have been done involving the Olympics and sexual activity and 99% of all studies conducted have always concluded that it has no effect whatsoever on athletic performance. It is just a dumbass schoolyard excuse as to why you sucked and missed on your breakaway.

The myth of sex and athletic performance, explained - CNN

I understand the science and Ali was probably the most famous athlete of all time to prove it was a myth.

How many of us have seen this movie several times and snickered at this old school mythology.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

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’s a joke you and your buddies make all the time” is a terrible defense of his comments. A. That’s an indictment of the things you apparently say in private. B. That’s assuming everyone else says those things in private, too. And C. Milbury isn’t joking with his buddies; he’s on national television.

Also, Harrell apologized on Twitter AND to Luca in person before game four.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I understand the science and Ali was probably the most famous athlete of all time to prove it was a myth.

How many of us have seen this movie several times and snickered at this old school mythology.

It’s dramatic irony. “Women weaken legs” is proven literally wrong by the end of the film when you see the impact Adrian had on Rocky becoming a better fighter.

 

[kilowatt]

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

Don’t forget Larry Murphy either!

 

[psych3man]

Women ARE a distraction---sometimes good, sometimes bad (a product of men's own decision making).
Thank God they are! Been with my wife 38 years and women as a distraction is great for my business.
If women weren't a distraction they would not have the impact on men our society needs, they would be irrelevant. And wouldn't that suck...

(I can't even believe we've gotten to the point where the obvious advantages and disadvantages of biological and societal functioning are offensive.)

 

[KINGS17]

Boston is our only hope haha.

It's tough because this is right smack in the middle of VGK's collective prime--all of their best players are 26-28, the perfect convergence of production peak/experience/fitness. Patches and Martinez are a lil older of course. But everyone else is solidly in the win-now window.

I wouldn't count out Colorado just yet.

 

[Schrute farms]

It’s dramatic irony. “Women weaken legs” is proven literally wrong by the end of the film when you see the impact Adrian had on Rocky becoming a better fighter.

About 15 years ago, early on in my marriage, I told my wife "no" the night before a big playoff game and i needed to get a good nights sleep. I literally had the worse game of my life and we lost. Learned my lesson the hard way (no pun intended) -- that was the one & only time I made that mistake lol.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

All of this is a distraction to prevent us from discussing Erik Cernak.

 

[Bandit]

About 15 years ago, early on in my marriage, I told my wife "no" the night before a big playoff game and i needed to get a good nights sleep. I literally had the worse game of my life and we lost. Learned my lesson the hard way (no pun intended) -- that was the one & only time I made that mistake lol.

In my experience, day before = good, day of = bad. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

 

[SettlementRichie10]

The overwhelming success of the bubble just goes to show how easy it is to contain this pandemic with universal, rapid testing and everyone following basic safety procedures.

Like, imagine if we could rapidly test every single person in an outbreak zone and quickly quarantine the positives. That's basically what they did in SK from the beginning, which is why they've been able to continue operating while idiots in America continue to complain about masks.

 

[fivehole32]

I am sure if Mike Milbury would have said, "Yeah and no worries of distraction by their significant other." it probably would have been okay, but man this is another silly one. I don't enjoy listening to Milbury during games honestly, but its something for everyone to get angered about. People have to get angry about something nowadays and post it on social media, even though we've heard it for years road trips how it brings the guys together and there are no distractions.

 

[fivehole32]

The overwhelming success of the bubble just goes to show how easy it is to contain this pandemic with universal, rapid testing and everyone following basic safety procedures.

Like, imagine if we could rapidly test every single person in an outbreak zone and quickly quarantine the positives. That's basically what they did in SK from the beginning, which is why they've been able to continue operating while idiots in America continue to complain about masks.

With mandatory contact tracing applications on the phones too, using GPS to identify if you've been in the same location as anyone who has tested positive.

 

[SFKingshomer]

What the NBA player said should have got him fined and suspended. If the races were reversed, there would have been a riot and lifetime ban.