Portzline and Dispatch Blow it On Horton

[SuperGenius]

I pay for his content as a subscriber. Next question please.

Well, I don't pay that rag a dime. I use a private window in Safari to read their stuff willy-nilly but I want an explanation too

 

[Kev22]

I pay for his content as a subscriber. Next question please.

Why subscribe when you can get his same supposed inaccurate info on Twitter for free? Point is, you guys have bagged on Portzline for years, but the powers that be at the Dispatch seem to think he does good job and he seems respected around the league, why the vitriol? Maybe you guys should organize another protest.

 

[NotWendell]

Why subscribe when you can get his same supposed inaccurate info on Twitter for free? Point is, you guys have bagged on Portzline for years, but the powers that be at the Dispatch seem to think he does good job and he seems respected around the league, why the vitriol? Maybe you guys should organize another protest.

Don't count me with the Porty baggers. I've been a supporter, defender and apologist of his for years. Today, with the lack of a source or explanation, I'm just disappointed.

 

[NotWendell]

Why subscribe when you can get his same supposed inaccurate info on Twitter for free? Point is, you guys have bagged on Portzline for years, but the powers that be at the Dispatch seem to think he does good job and he seems respected around the league, why the vitriol? Maybe you guys should organize another protest.

I subscribe because I believe people should be paid for their work. Not Jared Boll or David Clarkson paid, but paid.

 

[BluejacketNut]

Some of you dudes are so insufferable that you need to take a look in the mirror.

As I read this, they chose not to insure the first year because it seemed to be an unnecessary expenditure. Horton's back wonked out during the offseason therefore not allowing the Jackets to insure the contract in year two. To me, it's a calculated risk that has backfired. Everyone seems to want GMJK's head on a platter, but who's to say he's pulling the trigger on that type of decision. Does he or does he not have a boss?

In his 9 years prior to joining the club, Horton missed almost 2 full seasons (think it was around 155 games), why you wouldnt insure that when signing for 7 years is indefensible. He was known damaged good, absolutely terrible decision

 

[SuperGenius]

In his 9 years prior to joining the club, Horton missed almost 2 full seasons (think it was around 155 games), why you wouldnt insure that when signing for 7 years is indefensible. He was known damaged good, absolutely terrible decision

The explanation is that because of his pre-existing condition and the deductible, they either couldn't insure him or it wasn't practical and would not have ultimately helped in any way.

Seriously doubt it was as reckless as it seems.

 

[blahblah]

Some of you dudes are so insufferable that you need to take a look in the mirror.

As I read this, they chose not to insure the first year because it seemed to be an unnecessary expenditure. Horton's back wonked out during the offseason therefore not allowing the Jackets to insure the contract in year two. To me, it's a calculated risk that has backfired. Everyone seems to want GMJK's head on a platter, but who's to say he's pulling the trigger on that type of decision. Does he or does he not have a boss?

That decision sure bit them in the ass didn't it? This wasn't a contract for Jared Boll. What this has to do with "looking in the mirror" I have no idea. I wouldn't have left the team exposed like that unless I was ordered too. Someone screwed up.

Having said that, AP is AP. He's kind of a ****** reporter, but he does report on the team which I appreciate it. I think we've fed his ego too much with those stupid "Ask AP" things he does weekly during the season. He's not very insightful and he's wrong on a regular basis. But people eat it up for some reason. Not only that, but they actually buy his answers. No idea why.

As far as the context of this, I think he made a mistake and didn't research it as just made an assumption. At least an assumption that we took out the policy. Perhaps he did get it from a source, but didn't get a second source. That wouldn't be shocking as I don't think most reports would bother. It's not like they were reporting on a potential crime or something, where you need to make sure your information is accurate.

I think it's useful to bring up to AP so that he remembers that he screwed up so that maybe he's more careful in the future. But in the scheme of things, it isn't important - just embarrassing for AP. No harm was done to the readers or any individuals. The OP just gets a free shot to take at AP, which I'm sure he's enjoying to no end.

 

[blahblah]

The explanation is that because of his pre-existing condition and the deductible, they either couldn't insure him or it wasn't practical and would not have ultimately helped in any way.

Seriously doubt it was as reckless as it seems.

It was reckless to allow him to play in a game without the team insured. They took a risk and it backfired big time. You can't let a contract like that come to work.

I highly doubt they couldn't insure him, but if they couldn't have I would have had them shut him down for the entire season. I know there would have been a ton of *****ing and moaning, but you can't expose the franchise to that level of liability. Career ending injuries are rare, but they do happen.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Portzline's issues don't concern me. Media accuracy is a crap shoot in any department.

I would love to know the details of the internal decision-making about not getting insurance. Also, if Horton could not be insured from jump street, then the competency of the entire front office has to be questioned. Why would anyone risk $40 million on an uninsurable contract for a non star player who was already injured and had a history of regular injuries including concussions?

I wonder what ownership is thinking right now? I also wonder if it had any say in the insure/don't insure process. If it didn't, then JK and JD have lots of splainen to do.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see the axe fall on one or both should ownership have had no role in the initial insurance scenario. I will allow for the possibility that ownership may have forced the issue on this trade. They seem to have an extreme aversion to paying players who aren't playing for the CBJ.

 

[Sonny21]

The explanation is that because of his pre-existing condition and the deductible, they either couldn't insure him or it wasn't practical and would not have ultimately helped in any way.

Seriously doubt it was as reckless as it seems.

Actually they could of insured him, it just wouldn't cover anything related to his shoulders. So they could of easily insured everything else other then the shoulders.

I guess they simply didn't want to pay for it thinking they still have to pay and he'll be back.

Short sighted I would say when it comes to signing any player to 7 year contract.

 

[Tairy]

I feel like I can hear porty breathing heavily as I'm reading puck rakers.

 

[MAHJ71]

As somoene who clears his cookies after every 5 articles, I'd still like to know how who lied about the insurance in the fall.

I don't think Porty lied. I think someone from the team either lied to him or was severely misinformed.

Either way, I've noticed his interaction with fans on twitter is questionable - he refuses to admit to mistakes.

I appreciate his information from time to time, just wish he went about it in a better way.

 

[MAHJ71]

Well, I don't pay that rag a dime. I use a private window in Safari to read their stuff willy-nilly but I want an explanation too

For some reason this only works at certain times for me... I must be doing something wrong - lol!

 

[We Want Ten]

The explanation is that because of his pre-existing condition and the deductible, they either couldn't insure him or it wasn't practical and would not have ultimately helped in any way.

Seriously doubt it was as reckless as it seems.

Maybe this club needs to rethink the type of FA we are going to pursue. Because if you're going after a guy you can't properly insure due to injuries....

 

[BluejacketNut]

The explanation is that because of his pre-existing condition and the deductible, they either couldn't insure him or it wasn't practical and would not have ultimately helped in any way.

Seriously doubt it was as reckless as it seems.

Then they should have passed, or at least gone with a 3 year contract. When something is bad enough that you cant insure it, that should be a red flag

 

[CapnCornelius]

Why subscribe when you can get his same supposed inaccurate info on Twitter for free? Point is, you guys have bagged on Portzline for years, but the powers that be at the Dispatch seem to think he does good job and he seems respected around the league, why the vitriol? Maybe you guys should organize another protest.

Don't expect a protest in Porty's honor any time soon.

The Dispatch sees him as competent enough and cheap enough that there's no real reason to make a change. Keep in mind, the Dispatch owns a stake in the team, so its hardly in their best interest to have a competent reporter who might actually ask tough questions. Someone to publish glorified press releases is just fine and that's all Aaron is.

Respected around the league? Don't confuse the fraternal camaraderie of fellow journalists for respect. If you pay attention to the hockey media, people like Bob McKenzie, Helene Elliott and (before his recent problems) Adrian Dater are truly respected by their peers for a variety of reasons. McKenzie is "the authority." He's the guy that when he says something is so, its so and everyone takes that as a given. This is true to a lesser extent for some of is TSN colleagues, but Bob is probably considered (and, rightly so) the top dog of hockey journalism. Helene Elliott has covered hockey for 30 plus years in two of the biggest media markets in the country and she started at a time when it was unconventional for women to cover sports in general let alone hockey. Personal problems (and personality problems) aside, Dater published two books about the team he covered getting far more in depth on the subject than your run-of-the-mill beat reporter. As a result, these people are held in high regards by their colleagues. Portzline is the guy other reporters hang out with and have a beer with when they are in Columbus and he's their "guy in Columbus" because...well, what's their other choice these days?

Maybe its a generational thing, but the reason it "matters" is because real journalists, not those of us who post on the Internet or on social media, but people who hold themselves out as belonging to the profession of journalism, should be held to a higher standard. That's been one of my problems with the blogification and now Twitterization of traditional media. Guys like Portzline and Arace like to look down their nose at non-professionals (look back to Arace's column prior to Hitch's dismissal as Exhibit A) while at the same time they have become lax in upholding basic standards of journalism. To have such lax standards while continuing along a subscription-based model as The Dispatch has seems particularly offensive--if you are not going to hold your online publication to the same standard that print journalism has held itself to for the last century (ex. multiple sources for a story), what justifies the premium you are charging?

 

[MAHJ71]

Don't expect a protest in Porty's honor any time soon.

The Dispatch sees him as competent enough and cheap enough that there's no real reason to make a change. Keep in mind, the Dispatch owns a stake in the team, so its hardly in their best interest to have a competent reporter who might actually ask tough questions. Someone to publish glorified press releases is just fine and that's all Aaron is.

Respected around the league? Don't confuse the fraternal camaraderie of fellow journalists for respect. If you pay attention to the hockey media, people like Bob McKenzie, Helene Elliott and (before his recent problems) Adrian Dater are truly respected by their peers for a variety of reasons. McKenzie is "the authority." He's the guy that when he says something is so, its so and everyone takes that as a given. This is true to a lesser extent for some of is TSN colleagues, but Bob is probably considered (and, rightly so) the top dog of hockey journalism. Helene Elliott has covered hockey for 30 plus years in two of the biggest media markets in the country and she started at a time when it was unconventional for women to cover sports in general let alone hockey. Personal problems (and personality problems) aside, Dater published two books about the team he covered getting far more in depth on the subject than your run-of-the-mill beat reporter. As a result, these people are held in high regards by their colleagues. Portzline is the guy other reporters hang out with and have a beer with when they are in Columbus and he's their "guy in Columbus" because...well, what's their other choice these days?

Maybe its a generational thing, but the reason it "matters" is because real journalists, not those of us who post on the Internet or on social media, but people who hold themselves out as belonging to the profession of journalism, should be held to a higher standard. That's been one of my problems with the blogification and now Twitterization of traditional media. Guys like Portzline and Arace like to look down their nose at non-professionals (look back to Arace's column prior to Hitch's dismissal as Exhibit A) while at the same time they have become lax in upholding basic standards of journalism. To have such lax standards while continuing along a subscription-based model as The Dispatch has seems particularly offensive--if you are not going to hold your online publication to the same standard that print journalism has held itself to for the last century (ex. multiple sources for a story), what justifies the premium you are charging?

Quite the post - thanks for sharing.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Dater was NOT respected by other writers.

At all.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Either way, I've noticed his interaction with fans on twitter is questionable - he refuses to admit to mistakes.

I appreciate his information from time to time, just wish he went about it in a better way.

He blocked me around the deadline last year because I pointed out Johansen for Kesler wouldn't work because of the cap (also...duh).

Re: Safari - google chrome is your friend instead.

 

[NotWendell]

I asked whether his source was a team source, a league source or other on Twitter. No response.

In the comments section of the news report on Puckrakers, I asked why it was reported earlier that the CBJ had insurance on Horton with links to the articles. The comment was removed.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[CapnCornelius]

I asked whether his source was a team source, a league source or other on Twitter. No response.

In the comments section of the news report on Puckrakers, I asked why it was reported earlier that the CBJ had insurance on Horton with links to the articles. The comment was removed.

Draw your own conclusions.

I've called him out on it multiple times to no response. Maybe he'll address it if someone asks in the chat. Otherwise, strategy seems to be to pretend it never happened.

 

[futurcorerock]

This is a legitimate question that needs to be asked, but I think sniping Porty from Twitter and the Comments section of his blog isn't going to get any good answers.

If you're genuinely outraged and you're a paying customer, politely inform the Dispatch/Puck Rakers that you're canceling your subscription and tell them this is the reason why.

 

[NotWendell]

This is a legitimate question that needs to be asked, but I think sniping Porty from Twitter and the Comments section of his blog isn't going to get any good answers.

If you're genuinely outraged and you're a paying customer, politely inform the Dispatch/Puck Rakers that you're canceling your subscription and tell them this is the reason why.

My next step is to write Ray Stein and Ben Marrison.

 

[MAHJ71]

I asked whether his source was a team source, a league source or other on Twitter. No response.

In the comments section of the news report on Puckrakers, I asked why it was reported earlier that the CBJ had insurance on Horton with links to the articles. The comment was removed.

Draw your own conclusions.

I've asked him seveal times on twitter as well.. no answer of course but, I figured that much

 

[1857 Howitzer]

I asked whether his source was a team source, a league source or other on Twitter. No response.

In the comments section of the news report on Puckrakers, I asked why it was reported earlier that the CBJ had insurance on Horton with links to the articles. The comment was removed.

Draw your own conclusions.

My tweet was ignored also and I'm not surprised. The funny thing was minutes later he tweets something stupid about the Captain situation. Going into distraction mode?

This is a legitimate question that needs to be asked, but I think sniping Porty from Twitter and the Comments section of his blog isn't going to get any good answers.

If you're genuinely outraged and you're a paying customer, politely inform the Dispatch/Puck Rakers that you're canceling your subscription and tell them this is the reason why.

I'm sure it's not going to get answers, but I do not pay for that rag in the first place so canceling is not an option for me and I'm sure many others.