Around the League Thread part V

[Sol]

I think Pettersson rebounding is just as likely as Kempe coming back down to more his career average. LA got career years from him and Danault. Also received a bounceback from Quick and Doughty. Not all of that is going continue. That said LA also should have internal growth (and alot of it), a better year from Arvidson and Cal P would go a long way and is not out of the question, and brought in Fiala.

Anyway, I think it is fair to assume LA and Van will be battling for the same playoff spot/spots.

Then I’ll start off now with the trash talking. The Canucks can suck it.

 

[Herby]

There's no problem with owners or other people thinking differently.

There will be legitimate questions, however, depending on future interactions go.

If things don't work out with him in Nashville, the politics will be brought up - is it because of direction from ownership, or is it because Prokop feels excluded? Being part of the gay community, he will want to try to widen the audience and inclusivity of players in the NHL. Teammates have already used pride tape in support. Will ownership allow such events or promotions?

It's okay that there are people who think differently. But it's not okay if it will interfere with giving a prospect a fair shot to succeed and IF he blocks promotions or events when the NHL promotes "hockey is for everyone". I'm not saying he will do it, just that there's a certain threshold where "just thinking differently" is not all he's doing.

As someone noted, the Kings are owned by someone who thinks similarly and there have never been any kind of issues and the Kings appear to be a very inclusive organization.

These guys want to win and make as much (or lose as little) as they can, just like people of opposing political views do.

If the Kings were to draft an openly gay player would people have concerns with how he is developed because of PA? Heck, I’d be more worried that they’d send him to the AHL to soon than he’d have trouble fitting in.

 

[Herby]

He could also just not be good enough to make it.

That won’t stop the media, unfortunately. Remember when Michael Sam was drafted so late (bigotry) and when the Rams cut him it was more bigotry.

Turned out he wasn’t even good enough for the CFL.

I think Prokop will be given a fair shake, no matter what. But whether he makes the team or is cut the media from both sides will try and create a narrative. That he either made it because he is gay or he was cut because he was gay. That is what their audiences want to hear.

Tough times.

 

[King'sPawn]

As someone noted, the Kings are owned by someone who thinks similarly and there have never been any kind of issues and the Kings appear to be a very inclusive organization.

These guys want to win and make as much (or lose as little) as they can, just like people of opposing political views do.

If the Kings were to draft an openly gay player would people have concerns with how he is developed because of PA? Heck, I’d be more worried that they’d send him to the AHL to soon than he’d have trouble fitting in.

The Kings have also been very inclusionary while under Anshutz, including drafting JAD, who was raised by two mothers.

We don't know the amount of involvement, if any, the new owner would have.

I'm just saying it's not a problem until it is. With a new owner, who knows how things will be? But you can bet I'd have questions about PA owning a team if his politics reached too far into excluding a group of people from playing hockey.

 

[bland]

I feel like this country is so polarized politically that we just need to accept the fact that there are going to be people who think completely differently than you may think. Whether that is people that are owning teams, playing for teams, managing teams. Or even at a more personal level, people who are our coworkers, bosses etc.

Yup, but it is also perfectly fair to note the owner's activities so those who work for him or support his product can decide for themselves whether they want to be involved. And if they don't, there are plenty of ways to share that dissatisfaction.

And that's all that is really happening everywhere right now, but folks can't help but make a lot of noise about it being "cancel culture".

I am not happy about Anschutz's beliefs, but that is his business until he makes it mine - then its up to me to act accordingly upon my beliefs.

 

[KINGS17]

There's no problem with owners or other people thinking differently.

There will be legitimate questions, however, depending on future interactions go.

If things don't work out with him in Nashville, the politics will be brought up - is it because of direction from ownership, or is it because Prokop feels excluded? Being part of the gay community, he will want to try to widen the audience and inclusivity of players in the NHL. Teammates have already used pride tape in support. Will ownership allow such events or promotions?

It's okay that there are people who think differently. But it's not okay if it will interfere with giving a prospect a fair shot to succeed and IF he blocks promotions or events when the NHL promotes "hockey is for everyone". I'm not saying he will do it, just that there's a certain threshold where "just thinking differently" is not all he's doing.

...or everyone could just ignore Prokup's sexual orientation and not promote anything other than a hockey player on a hockey team.

 

[King'sPawn]

...or everyone could just ignore Prokup's sexual orientation and not promote anything other than a hockey player on a hockey team.

Cool. I was going to have a longer response, but it was going to venture into political talk.

There IS a reason these celebrations and promotions exist though.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

There's not gonna be a right answer here for everyone.

It's an ugly mishmash of the "Hockey is for Everyone" message, an owner's public and private values and what impact they may or may not have, the fact that representation matters, the fact that the owner can have his own views without meddling (see Phil), how individuals on this forum feel about any of the above, and much much more.

I think everyone's done a pretty good job of not imposing so far but I just don't see how productive this discussion can be if it continues.

I absolutely love that this forum has such a wide variety of viewpoints, backgrounds, and beliefs, and we're all one beautiful f***ed up family because of it

 

[KINGS17]

Cool. I was going to have a longer response, but it was going to venture into political talk.

There IS a reason these celebrations and promotions exist though.

No, actually the promotions don't need to exist. I don't begrudge any player their right to make a living based on their sexual orientation, and it is quite clear no major league sport is doing so. There IS a reason in your mind for these promotions, but not in mine, because I simply don't care about anything other than the player's ability to do his job.

 

[Statto]

...or everyone could just ignore Prokup's sexual orientation and not promote anything other than a hockey player on a hockey team.

But ignoring it just maintains the status quo. Ignoring good and bad things because it is uncomfortable or controversial moves nothing forward. So I’ll use something less controversial… my wider point isn’t directed at you specifically.

Women can’t play football (soccer) was the view held for decades and for a long time the product was significantly inferior. However, a drive for equitable treatment in the game has shifted that narrative and it’s now a superb product, that has little or no diving and the money is now flooding into the game. That required a lot political work to change that mind set. The implications for that change in the UK after the recent win is going to have a huge impact on females in the UK due to shattering a perceived glass ceiling and it’s inspirational impact. The male minds and attitudes that have changed over the last decade is significant also.

Prokup’s orientation is important because there will be many, many players hiding who they are which is awful for their mental health. There will be great talents lost to the game because of dressing room stereotypes and so on. Then there’s the wider society knock on’s. Unfortunately sport and politics does cross over, there’s no getting away from it. The national anthem at the start of every game is 100% political, as are the celebrations of the military before the game - it’s just politics that everyone likes.

 

[Bandit]

But ignoring it just maintains the status quo. Ignoring good and bad things because it is uncomfortable or controversial moves nothing forward. So I’ll use something less controversial… my wider point isn’t directed at you specifically.

Women can’t play football (soccer) was the view held for decades and for a long time the product was significantly inferior. However, a drive for equitable treatment in the game has shifted that narrative and it’s now a superb product, that has little or no diving and the money is now flooding into the game. That required a lot political work to change that mind set. The implications for that change in the UK after the recent win is going to have a huge impact on females in the UK due to shattering a perceived glass ceiling and it’s inspirational impact. The male minds and attitudes that have changed over the last decade is significant also.

Prokup’s orientation is important because there will be many, many players hiding who they are which is awful for their mental health. There will be great talents lost to the game because of dressing room stereotypes and so on. Then there’s the wider society knock on’s. Unfortunately sport and politics does cross over, there’s no getting away from it. The national anthem at the start of every game is 100% political, as are the celebrations of the military before the game - it’s just politics that everyone likes.

Great post.

It's so wild to me when people say "keep politics out of sports" without realizing that's exactly why it needs to be there. Might as well be saying "get back in the closet and be quiet". It's more wild to me that who somebody kisses is political at all. Too many people out there thinking that they have the right to impose their will on others. Like Bill & Ted, I wish we could all just be excellent to each other but I'm not holding out much hope at this point.

 

[KingsFan7824]

But ignoring it just maintains the status quo. Ignoring good and bad things because it is uncomfortable or controversial moves nothing forward. So I’ll use something less controversial… my wider point isn’t directed at you specifically.

Women can’t play football (soccer) was the view held for decades and for a long time the product was significantly inferior. However, a drive for equitable treatment in the game has shifted that narrative and it’s now a superb product, that has little or no diving and the money is now flooding into the game. That required a lot political work to change that mind set. The implications for that change in the UK after the recent win is going to have a huge impact on females in the UK due to shattering a perceived glass ceiling and it’s inspirational impact. The male minds and attitudes that have changed over the last decade is significant also.

Prokup’s orientation is important because there will be many, many players hiding who they are which is awful for their mental health. There will be great talents lost to the game because of dressing room stereotypes and so on. Then there’s the wider society knock on’s. Unfortunately sport and politics does cross over, there’s no getting away from it. The national anthem at the start of every game is 100% political, as are the celebrations of the military before the game - it’s just politics that everyone likes.

And even still, the UK women's team has been criticized for things that have nothing to do with how they perform on the field. Similar things will likely happen with Prokop. Especially if he doesn't make it in Nashville, but happens to click somewhere else. That of course happens all the time everywhere. Players just needing a change of scenery. But Nashville will have a certain distinction, due to the stereotype of their scary new owner.

 

[Statto]

And even still, the UK women's team has been criticized for things that have nothing to do with how they perform on the field. Similar things will likely happen with Prokop. Especially if he doesn't make it in Nashville, but happens to click somewhere else. That of course happens all the time everywhere. Players just needing a change of scenery. But Nashville will have a certain distinction, due to the stereotype of their scary new owner.

Yep… we’re not there yet, not by any means.

 

[Bandit]

And even still, the UK women's team has been criticized for things that have nothing to do with how they perform on the field. Similar things will likely happen with Prokop. Especially if he doesn't make it in Nashville, but happens to click somewhere else. That of course happens all the time everywhere. Players just needing a change of scenery. But Nashville will have a certain distinction, due to the stereotype of their scary new owner.

I mean just last year that team of women got fined for not competing in bikinis. We’ve still got a LONG way to go.

 

[KINGS17]

But ignoring it just maintains the status quo. Ignoring good and bad things because it is uncomfortable or controversial moves nothing forward. So I’ll use something less controversial… my wider point isn’t directed at you specifically.

Women can’t play football (soccer) was the view held for decades and for a long time the product was significantly inferior. However, a drive for equitable treatment in the game has shifted that narrative and it’s now a superb product, that has little or no diving and the money is now flooding into the game. That required a lot political work to change that mind set. The implications for that change in the UK after the recent win is going to have a huge impact on females in the UK due to shattering a perceived glass ceiling and it’s inspirational impact. The male minds and attitudes that have changed over the last decade is significant also.

Prokup’s orientation is important because there will be many, many players hiding who they are which is awful for their mental health. There will be great talents lost to the game because of dressing room stereotypes and so on. Then there’s the wider society knock on’s. Unfortunately sport and politics does cross over, there’s no getting away from it. The national anthem at the start of every game is 100% political, as are the celebrations of the military before the game - it’s just politics that everyone likes.

The female soccer product is still significantly inferior, as is the WNBA, or any women's team sports league. The only time the women's soccer pulls any ratings or interest is when the national team is playing. Some of the women on the team pretty much screwed that up last time by injecting their politics into the sport.

Most fans don't need the politics, and they don't want the politics in their sports.

Play the national anthem, don't play it. It's a nice tradition that stirs patriotism during certain periods of strife like after 9/11. I don't consider the playing of the anthem political, but you are welcome to have your own interpretation.

 

[Kudelski37]

Hey, let's not imply women's soccer is boring because of the women. Even women can't make soccer interesting!

 

[Schrute farms]

lol, i was going to joke that the only thing more boring than soccer is women's soccer....but Kudelski stole my thunder there a bit. (FYI: and i kind of like men's soccer -- EPL and WC).

 

[Sol]

Womens volleyball is pretty fun to watch at least

 

[johnjm22]

BLUE = Democrat
DARK BLUE = Independent
GRAY = Republican

NHL Fanbase Political Affiliation By Franchise:

So the franchise with the most conservative fanbase in the league has the 1st ever openly gay prospect, and is proud of him for coming out, and wants to be supportive of LGBTQ.

If you the most conservative fanbase in the league seems indifferent and/or supportive, it makes you wonder if any of this stuff is really an issue at all.

 

[King'sPawn]

So the franchise with the most conservative fanbase in the league has the 1st ever openly gay prospect, and is proud of him for coming out, and wants to be supportive of LGBTQ.

If you the most conservative fanbase in the league seems indifferent and/or supportive, it makes you wonder if any of this stuff is really an issue at all.

It's pretty clear a conversation can't be had without it devolving into a political discussion, and one side has their head in the sand because they aren't part of the minority.

So the rest of you can have fun.

 

[KingsHockey24]

Womens volleyball is pretty fun to watch at least

What about mens volleyball?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It's pretty clear a conversation can't be had without it devolving into a political discussion, and one side has their head in the sand because they aren't part of the minority.

So the rest of you can have fun.

I'm trying to steer it away from the political side a bit because it's clear we aren't going to necessarily find 'agreement' there.

That being said--i think the point being made is that, no matter how I personally feel about the owner's politics, there have been a few examples presented of how owners are mostly pretty good about their organizations dissociating from their values (see AEG and inclusivity earlier).

It's clear though, through other examples being presented too (was it @Herby who brought up Michael Sam?), that the owner will be under a microscope for whatever happens if Prokop is not successful.

But, all of the above is why inclusivity is important, imo. I'm focused less on 'cancelling' (never mind how much that term is bullshit) and more on creating an environment where more people feel empowered to play and watch hockey without being uncomfortable. The owner, in my humble opinion, has to recognize that to some degree. You would think--even just ignoring the human element and going fully sociopathic about it--there's a profit to be had in creating an environment for everyone.

 

[Schmooley]

it makes you wonder if any of this stuff is really an issue at all.

Its really not an issue. Propaganda keeps two sides of the population fighting amongst themselves about stuff like abortion, womens rights, gay marriage, etc…
Meanwhile they are behind the scenes making deals, selling stocks, and generally rigging the system as a team while making huge personal profits.
We should all be on the same team against the tyranny instead of fighting with each other about basic liberties and whos religion is more right.

 

[kilowatt]

Its really not an issue. Propaganda keeps two sides of the population fighting amongst themselves about stuff like abortion, womens rights, gay marriage, etc…
Meanwhile they are behind the scenes making deals, selling stocks, and generally rigging the system as a team while making huge personal profits.
We should all be on the same team against the tyranny instead of fighting with each other about basic liberties and whos religion is more right.

you cant just be out here droppin truth bombs like this

 

[Schrute farms]

The reality is, politicians care first & foremost about getting elected. Nothing else matters than that. So they will go where the votes are position wise. The ones that actually do the right thing regardless of their base & votes -- are gone and voted out. Plain & simple. So if the votes are with kicking a dog or baby -- there will be a line of politicians lining up to do so.

Same with sport owners -- but it's money they care about first & foremost. Unfortunately for us fans, it's NOT about winning. Owners will do & say what's needed for the dollar...not how they personally feel and their political leanings.