Portzline and Dispatch Blow it On Horton

[We Want Ten]

If you make $50k a year, are you paying 15k in life insurance for your family's sake? What if that life insurance excluded manners of death like drowning, fire, cranial exposions or heart disease? Would you still do it just in case the way you went out was something else? What if your kids and sibling had no exclusions and you could insure all for the same amount?

Probably a terrible example, but I'm trying to explain the macro ideas involved....because honestly, I don't understand how anything the CBJ did here is unreasonable - or for that matter, different than what any other team does outside of possibly TML or MTL.

I disagree completely.

They should have never brought the guy in unless they were prepared to and able to protect their investment. For me it ends there.

 

[BluejacketNut]

I disagree completely.

They should have never brought the guy in unless they were prepared to and able to protect their investment. For me it ends there.

Pretty much where i stand as well. Horton was a known injury risk, if the costs or circumstances made it difficult to insure, then you at least lessen the risk with shorter term, or walk away. In this case, the worst case scenario happened, but thats what insurance is intended to protect

 

[JacketsDavid]

If you make $50k a year, are you paying 15k in life insurance for your family's sake? What if that life insurance excluded manners of death like drowning, fire, cranial exposions or heart disease? Would you still do it just in case the way you went out was something else? What if your kids and sibling had no exclusions and you could insure all for the same amount?

Probably a terrible example, but I'm trying to explain the macro ideas involved....because honestly, I don't understand how anything the CBJ did here is unreasonable - or for that matter, different than what any other team does outside of possibly TML or MTL.

I agree it's a business decision to insure or not insure, but they lost on the deal and they couldn't afford the result. Result ended up being they ended up with the worst contract in the NHL on their roster.

If you choose to not insure (or self insure) you have to be able to afford the outcome. if you can't afford the outcome you shouldn't play the game.

 

[PensFanInCBus]

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.

Are you honestly impugning a journalist for NOT giving up his sources...over Twitter...really?

 

[NotWendell]

Are you honestly impugning a journalist for NOT giving up his sources...over Twitter...really?

I asked him specifically if it was a team source, a league source or other. I will always "impugn" a journalist for reporting false information that comes from "uncategorized" sources. I can live with unnamed sources, but at least let the reader know if it is inside or outside the organization.

 

[BluejacketNut]

My favorite sources are the ones that are quoted, then stated that the source requests to remain anonymous because theyre not authorized to speak to the media, yet its still quoted. Journalism at its worst

 

[pete goegan]

My favorite sources are the ones that are quoted, then stated that the source requests to remain anonymous because theyre not authorized to speak to the media, yet its still quoted. Journalism at its worst

Yes, that makes me crazy, too; but not at the journalist, at the source. If you're not authorized, shut up!

 

[Samkow]

From the chat

1:16


Comment From JacketBacker
Why if the jackets were very tight-lipped about Horton's situation did you report that his contract was insured? Did you speculate or were you given misinformation from the organization? I think you have a little crow to eat here.
1:23


Portzline:
I'll eat crow, but with a side of rice and beans. We asked numerous times about Horton's situation, and the organization was always very tight-lipped about it, even awkward as if there was something to hide. While they didn't ever give us straight-on information regarding Horton's injury or his insurance - they even cited HIPA guidelines -- we were led to believe and allowed to believe that he was insured. There was some assumption on our part, yes, and I'll accept that. We should have couched it better in our writing. But we reported twice that he was insured, questions were answered about his contract and how much the club would actually owe him, without it ever coming up that he wasn't insured. We were never corrected, updated, informed that it was anything to the contrary. The entire situation was strange, even involving Horton. He spoke freely to me one day, even openly, told me that he had never told the club or his agent that he didn't want to speak to the media. Then a few days later he said he was cornered and felt pressured to talk, which is entirely untrue. It's a mess. But the mess has moved to Toronto now.

 

[Hooks]

From the chat

Makes sense to me. I've never understood the hatred towards Portz.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

Makes sense to me. I've never understood the hatred towards Portz.

If not Portz, someone or something else associated with the Blue Jackets will draw the ire of fans. Message boards are great for chat, but too often people just complain about anything and everything that they can.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Portzline is nothing but a deflection of the issue.

It appears that he asked someone he thought was reliable whether the club had insured Horton. While he admits he was never told that Horton was insured, the implication that he was seemed to be reasonably drawn from his discussions with his sources.

It's insurance for crying out loud. If someone says (or implies) that one has it, then that's usually the end of the conversation.

The only relevant conversation is who made the call on: a) not insuring Horton in year 1 and leaving him at risk for future years,
or b) who made the call to sign him if they knew that the insurer had opted on Horton or a good portion of Horton's body parts, or c) who didn't pursue the insurance outside of the standard NHL insurer once it was known that Horton wasn't insurable through traditional channels.

Portzline is not the issue. While his reporting wasn't air tight in this circumstance, who would really expect a lot of digging on something as obvious as insuring an injury-riddled player? The issue is in the front office of the CBJ. Period.

 

[CapnCornelius]

From the chat

I don't see any indication that Portzline was lied to based on his response. He asked a question. They dodged answering the question citing HIPAA concerns in order to answering a question that might embarrass the organization. He made assumptions based on indirect comments and ran with it. They didn't correct him because, quite frankly, it wasn't their job to correct him when he went out on that limb and it was to the benefit of the organization that the questions about the insurance die rather than have to confess that they didn't insure their most expensive acquisition.

This was shoddy journalism. Case closed.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Thread starter considers case closed. Porty seems to have weighed in his last on the matter. Thread closed.