Gary Bettman Needs to Resign

[Reggie Dunlop]

Super Agent Allan Walsh weighs in...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1455531525269647360

[Erick Estrada]

Ha ha ha. No axe grinding there.

[GreenLantern2814]

I find it highly improbable that a plurality of NHL owners are concerned with Gary Bettman’s leadership.

He’s made them so much money over the last 25 years. If you think the NHL is Mickey Mouse under Gary, you should read about the clown show that existed when John Ziegler ran the zoo.

Most importantly, Gary doesn’t do anything without the backing of the owners. So if they’re dissatisfied with Gary, they only need to look in the mirror.

And yes, his press conference was a condescending disaster - but a bad press conference ain’t enough to sink the commissioner of a Big 4 sport. He’s there to take this heat so the rest of them don’t have to. That’s his job.

[neo45]

Am I the only one who thinks Bettman handled the press conference pretty well and it’s other people that are making fools of themselves?

Tara Sloane with the laughable cherry pick quote of the year

Allan Walsh using a serious assault as a shield to try and settle his feud with Bettman with deafening silence on anything Donald Fehr related?

[Mr.Coffee]

I watched the entire press conference and I’m not sure I agree with all the outrage about Bettman. Seemed like a guy genuinely concerned / feeling sorry about Beach and was trying to answer questions as openly as possible. Dunno.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by neo45

Am I the only one who thinks Bettman handled the press conference pretty well and it’s other people that are making fools of themselves?

Tara Sloane with the laughable cherry pick quote of the year

Allan Walsh using a serious assault as a shield to try and settle his feud with Bettman with deafening silence on anything Donald Fehr related?

I thought it was typical Bettman, for the most part.

When Westhead asked about offering lifetime counselling to the Michigan player abused by Aldrich, he gave a stupid lawyering answer when he could’ve just said “yeah, we’d absolutely be open to that, it’s something that is best left discussed in private among the affected parties, but it’s the right thing to do and I won’t comment on it further in this format.”

Which is kind of what he said, but he did it in that weird, non-human way that Gary says everything, so it came off as unfeeling.

Bettman and Daly also seemed fixated on the idea that what this problem was really lacking was a hotline. That seemed… insufficient.

They don’t do well when they have to make things up on the fly. They do really well when they take six months to come up with a plan.

Which is what this situation deserves. No commissioner is going to come in and “Change the culture of hockey”, and if anyone actually could manage to get a few things through the culture’s thick skull, it would probably be Bettman.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is the thing - when something legitimately "real life" happens in the context of sports, the people who report about it are sports journalists, and they are, by and large, woefully under-equipped. These are not the best and the brightest of the journalism profession, and you can argue about what proportion of the journalism profession generally are actually particularly bright. But to the extent that they put themselves in the position of arbiters of morality and justice on top of that, that's an utter farce. Tara Sloane (or whoever) has no basis for lecturing anyone about anything and her opinions about right or wrong or what's good for society or bad for society, or any aspect of it, are of no special value.

Hell, the same goes for Rick Westhead, even, but I'm willing to give him a lot more latitude in that area given that it's his reporting that brought an important story to light. The rest of them, though, especially the Sportsnet people, are just latching on and trying to cast themselves as authorities of some sort while begging for a spotlight to be shone on them personally - I can't stand these people.

Exactly. It’s the most modern form of media slackivism. Make emotional appeals based on your “platform” but you’ve done little else. Pat yourself of the back after said emotional appeal and job done. Can’t stand that nonsense as it’s the stuff that gets retweeted and shared. The other day when this incident happened when Jackie Redmond went off it was silly. But logic doesn’t have to be used or context doesn’t have to be considered anymore. Just appeals to emotion. Job done. Checkmark, likes accomplished, dopamine activated.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I watched the entire press conference and I’m not sure I agree with all the outrage about Bettman. Seemed like a guy genuinely concerned / feeling sorry about Beach and was trying to answer questions as openly as possible. Dunno.

Yeah I think the outrage has spiralled out of control and some in the hockey media look a little foolish. I understand that people are upset about what happened in the Hawks organization but calling for Bettman's head is extreme.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is the thing - when something legitimately "real life" happens in the context of sports, the people who report about it are sports journalists, and they are, by and large, woefully under-equipped. These are not the best and the brightest of the journalism profession, and you can argue about what proportion of the journalism profession generally are actually particularly bright. But to the extent that they put themselves in the position of arbiters of morality and justice on top of that, that's an utter farce. Tara Sloane (or whoever) has no basis for lecturing anyone about anything and her opinions about right or wrong or what's good for society or bad for society, or any aspect of it, are of no special value.

Hell, the same goes for Rick Westhead, even, but I'm willing to give him a lot more latitude in that area given that it's his reporting that brought an important story to light. The rest of them, though, especially the Sportsnet people, are just latching on and trying to cast themselves as authorities of some sort while begging for a spotlight to be shone on them personally - I can't stand these people.

Wow, that's quite a take.

Sloane clearly stated that she was editorializing and that these were her opinions alone. She expressed them clearly, thoughtfully, and eloquently. Why is her opinion invalid, simply because she is a hockey analyst and not a political reporter (or whatever)?

How about we evaluate her comments based on their content? I personally agreed with her.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I thought it was typical Bettman, for the most part.

When Westhead asked about offering lifetime counselling to the Michigan player abused by Aldrich, he gave a stupid lawyering answer when he could’ve just said “yeah, we’d absolutely be open to that, it’s something that is best left discussed in private among the affected parties, but it’s the right thing to do and I won’t comment on it further in this format.”

Which is kind of what he said, but he did it in that weird, non-human way that Gary says everything, so it came off as unfeeling.

Bettman and Daly also seemed fixated on the idea that what this problem was really lacking was a hotline. That seemed… insufficient.

They don’t do well when they have to make things up on the fly. They do really well when they take six months to come up with a plan.

I'm generally pro-Bettman and think people work hard to find fault or read things into his statements. This isn't something he's good at though, and part of it comes from having to be pretty darn careful when he speaks. He can't go too far in saying "we need to address this" without people saying "so you admit the NHL was at fault".

The NHL could benefit from a well spoken PR person. Not Bettman or Daley. And I think maybe Bettman's time has run, just because of age. But if he's just replaced by Daley I think that's a step backward.

[agulati]

Originally Posted by Torture

https://twitter.com/user/status/1455521526263033858

I thought the responses to his questions were quite snarky too, though maybe I was reading a bit into it.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Wow, that's quite a take.

Sloane clearly stated that she was editorializing and that these were her opinions alone. She expressed them clearly, thoughtfully, and eloquently. Why is her opinion invalid, simply because she is a hockey analyst and not a political reporter (or whatever)?

How about we evaluate her comments based on their content? I personally agreed with her.

Hockey analyst, a little bit of a stretch. Host for segments nobody watches, sure.

What about her arguments did you agree with? The NHL hasn’t done enough? Some issues, yes, some, no (purely based on nothing data driven). What exactly has she said that others haven’t said? Why doesn’t she talk about her terribly biased tweet? Let’s talk about some known facts the past couple years. Women not being involved at the nhl level? How about skating coaches being hired, Wickenheiser hired in player development, AHL trying out female refs. What more does she want in a short period of time?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

How about we evaluate her comments based on their content? I personally agreed with her.

I don't doubt that she's genuine in what she's saying, I just didn't give a flying #### what she has to say. And it sounds like I'm targeting Tara Sloane, and that's really only because she's being talked about in this thread. Really, I also mean Greg Wyshinski, who was unlistenable on the latest episode of Puck Soup I was listening to this morning, or Adam Wylde from the Steve Dangle Podcast I was listening to yesterday, who is consistently unlistenable, but especially when he tries to hold himself out as having some important viewpoint about some social issue, and all the rest of the people who think their personal feelings about this should be important to anyone but them and the people they interact with in their personal lives.

These people are not some sort of fonts of wisdom or public intellectuals whose input we should care about. They do not matter in the slightest. They're opportunistically attempting to bolster their own personal brands by spouting off, as if to say, "hey, pay attention to what I think about this! Don't forget about me! My personal feelings and emotions are important, indulge me! Give me affirmation!" It's obnoxious and distasteful. Allan Walsh is the perfect example of this crap, he's totally self-serving.

Some NHL reporters are, of course, doing a good job here, and asking the right questions of the people who are the subject of the story. But for every one of them, there are ten who won't ask Duncan Keith, "hey, you said you weren't interviewed - is that because you declined to be" or "Mr. Quenneville, in light of the revelations in the report this evening, why did you decide to coach tonight" - or won't apply the required pressure to persist and demand answers to those questions. It bugs the crap out of me. I don't give a damn what you think or how you feel; find out what the facts are and report them.

[iggyloob12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

These people are not some sort of fonts of wisdom or public intellectuals whose input we should care about. They do not matter in the slightest. They're opportunistically attempting to bolster their own personal brands by spouting off …

Most of the people you referenced are paid to share their opinions about hockey and what happens in the NHL. Some people obviously care or their content wouldn't have an audience. This is the biggest NHL story in decades and deserves a lot of attention and differing opinions.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't doubt that she's genuine in what she's saying, I just didn't give a flying #### what she has to say. And it sounds like I'm targeting Tara Sloane, and that's really only because she's being talked about in this thread. Really, I also mean Greg Wyshinski, who was unlistenable on the latest episode of Puck Soup I was listening to this morning, or Adam Wylde from the Steve Dangle Podcast I was listening to yesterday, who is consistently unlistenable, but especially when he tries to hold himself out as having some important viewpoint about some social issue, and all the rest of the people who think their personal feelings about this should be important to anyone but them and the people they interact with in their personal lives.

These people are not some sort of fonts of wisdom or public intellectuals whose input we should care about. They do not matter in the slightest. They're opportunistically attempting to bolster their own personal brands by spouting off, as if to say, "hey, pay attention to what I think about this! Don't forget about me! My personal feelings and emotions are important, indulge me! Give me affirmation!" It's obnoxious and distasteful. Allan Walsh is the perfect example of this crap, he's totally self-serving.

Some NHL reporters are, of course, doing a good job here, and asking the right questions of the people who are the subject of the story. But for every one of them, there are ten who won't ask Duncan Keith, "hey, you said you weren't interviewed - is that because you declined to be" or "Mr. Quenneville, in light of the revelations in the report this evening, why did you decide to coach tonight" - or won't apply the required pressure to persist and demand answers to those questions. It bugs the crap out of me. I don't give a damn what you think or how you feel; find out what the facts are and report them.

Finally someone who nails it.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by fleury

Hockey analyst, a little bit of a stretch. Host for segments nobody watches, sure.

What about her arguments did you agree with? The NHL hasn’t done enough? Some issues, yes, some, no (purely based on nothing data driven). What exactly has she said that others haven’t said? Why doesn’t she talk about her terribly biased tweet? Let’s talk about some known facts the past couple years. Women not being involved at the nhl level? How about skating coaches being hired, Wickenheiser hired in player development, AHL trying out female refs. What more does she want in a short period of time?

Well, she did reference her commentary from the day, including her Tweet. She explained that she is coming from an emotionally charged place, and exclusively from a group that has, traditionally, been shuffled out-of-sight in the NHL and hockey culture. Thankfully, that has recently changed and is gaining momentum.

What's different is that she spoke from a woman's perspective operating within the industry, and what she's saying - if I'm hearing properly - is that even with how much has gone on, what has come to light, and what the NHL has had to reckon in the past few years we are seeing the same damn rhetoric.

I'm not sure people want to change everything overnight, it's just disappointing that at yet another crossroads we are still entertaining the same 3 Ds I mentioned earlier.

Being emotional and demanding change is perfectly reasonable from a person with her platform and in her position. Frankly, I wouldn't trust it genuine if a little emotion and demand weren't part of it. With letting the perpetrators off light and declaring issues like the Aliu/Peters situation as closed (when it wasn't) I think people are justified in viewing Bettman and the NHL as insincere.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by iggyloob12

Most of the people you referenced are paid to share their opinions about hockey and what happens in the NHL. Some people obviously care or their content wouldn't have an audience. This is the biggest NHL story in decades and deserves a lot of attention and differing opinions.

And when the subject is the frequency that a rubber disk goes into a 6 foot by 4 foot net defended by a guy wearing a silly mask, or who should be selected first in the draft by a team named after a Disney film from 1992, I am perfectly willing to give a #### what they have to say about that utterly meaningless, unimportant game, because their personal qualifications, their ability to provide insight or meaningful additions to the discourse - or lack thereof - are of accordingly low importance.

It's when stuff like this, or the George Floyd protests, or other instances where the "real world" crosses over with the sports world, that I suddenly can't listen to podcasts or watch intermission panels for a week without wanting to slap people across the face.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

And when the subject is the frequency that a rubber disk goes into a 6 foot by 4 foot net defended by a guy wearing a silly mask, or who should be selected first in the draft by a team named after a Disney film from 1992, I am perfectly willing to give a #### what they have to say about that utterly meaningless, unimportant game, because their personal qualifications, their ability to provide insight or meaningful additions to the discourse - or lack thereof - are of accordingly low importance.

It's when stuff like this, or the George Floyd protests, or other instances where the "real world" crosses over with the sports world, that I suddenly can't listen to podcasts or watch intermission panels for a week without wanting to slap people across the face.

I would rather hear from persons within the industry than the Don Lemons or Tucker Carlsons latest hot takes on a sport to which they have never paid attention, especially if it happens within the hockey world.

Although I understand what you're saying and, honestly, it's been tough intermixing social commentary with sports lately. Between COVID and everything else, I'm just exhausted by it.

[Erick Estrada]

I have to agree. I just don't care to listen to social issue takes from sports media. I have found 960 unlistenable for the past few days as I just don't care about Logan Gordon, Riley Pullock, or Jeff Marek's takes on the topic over and over. I don't tune into these shows to hear moral compass stuff.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Well, she did reference her commentary from the day, including her Tweet. She explained that she is coming from an emotionally charged place, and exclusively from a group that has, traditionally, been shuffled out-of-sight in the NHL and hockey culture. Thankfully, that has recently changed and is gaining momentum.

What's different is that she spoke from a woman's perspective operating within the industry, and what she's saying - if I'm hearing properly - is that even with how much has gone on, what has come to light, and what the NHL has had to reckon in the past few years we are seeing the same damn rhetoric.

I'm not sure people want to change everything overnight, it's just disappointing that at yet another crossroads we are still entertaining the same 3 Ds I mentioned earlier.

Being emotional and demanding change is perfectly reasonable from a person with her platform and in her position. Frankly, I wouldn't trust it genuine if a little emotion and demand weren't part of it. With letting the perpetrators off light and declaring issues like the Aliu/Peters situation as closed (when it wasn't) I think people are justified in viewing Bettman and the NHL as insincere.

But she’s only looking at it from the angle of emotional appeal. Where are facts to back anything she’s saying? Has she even proposed anything to consider? She doesn’t realize there are so many things to consider here that Bettman and co have to play the cards close to their chest for legal reasons into the future. This speaks to credibility. She knew she was being given the spotlight to speak and she did it alright I guess but there are no facts. Just words and emotion. Like Corsi said, perhaps she should have a debate with Bettman or a bigwig and challenge them while on the show. Come with facts and not emotionally charged sweet nothings.