UPD: NHL announces Scott WILL captain the Pacific team

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by codynw

Who cares though? At the end of the day, the game is not even a little bit important.

Well, apparently it's important to the NHL.

[lazypucker]

Why didn't the NHL pull a lame "computer glitch" excuse regarding the John Scott votes right off the bat and there won't be any of these fiascos?

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by t0rrent98

What happens if you replace John Scott with Brian Mcgrattan? Would it still be the same or different? I'm sure at the end of the day, Mcgrattan will likely be in the same boat as J Scott is right now.

Heck no. McGrattan isn't a dirty player and he seems pretty well respected by other players. He'd likely not go out of respect to the league but I'd be 100% behind a player like him who isn't a dirty player. I think it was Jiri who mentioned Paul Byron, why not vote him in? A guy who's worked hard and fought for everything and actually contributes to his team.

[GirlySports]

let's vote Paul Byron in next year. CP jihad, someone make a script.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Trailer Fire

...Actually, I'm split on watching the ASG. I'd watch of Scott, Gio, or Johnny are Cap'n. If someone else is named Cap'n of the Pacific, I probably won't watch...

Really? This is what is going to do it for you? What do the ASG captains even do, in the first place?

To each their own, and far be it for me to disparage anyone's motives for watching. My reason for tuning in will be primarily to watch Gaudreau and Giordano play 3v3 hockey, which they excel at. Secondarily, it will also be to watch and see what a number of other sensationally talented players can do in this sort of tournament. My interest was certainly waning at the prospect of having to watch John Scott occupy space on the ice at the same time.

[t0rrent98]

If I were the NHL I'd shut this whole fiasco up by just letting him go to the ASG with PK Subban, let it slide this year than find a way to not repeat this sh*t next year.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

Why didn't the NHL pull a lame "computer glitch" excuse regarding the John Scott votes right off the bat and there won't be any of these fiascos?

Because MLB already used that one for their ASG and the KC Royals

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

He's a 33 year old enforcer. How many years did he really have left?

1?

And that's a $500,000 hit. It's a lot of money.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I thought Friedman was missing the point (maybe he isn't and I'm missing the point). I'm assuming that the fans who voted for Scott were making fun of the NHL and the All Star Game in particular. Scott just happened to be the player they chose to vote for to make a mokery of the All Star Game. The fans who voted for him are not laughing at him, they are laughing at the All Star Game.

I disagree - I think they are laughing at him. They wanted to see what a guy that has the worst mobility in the league would do in a 3:3 all-star format. He was the butt of the joke.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I disagree - I think they are laughing at him. They wanted to see what a guy that has the worst mobility in the league would do in a 3:3 all-star format. He was the butt of the joke.

I don't think so - I don't think most fans even knew who John Scott was before they voted - they just saw it as a yuk to make a mockery of the NHL's own bush league stupidity in allowing them to choose anyone they want. They could have chosen Homer Simpson and done the same thing (dunno - maybe they had to pick from a list though).

The blame falls squarely on the nimrods at the NHL head office - and if anyone is laughing at anyone, it should be us, at them.

As always, trying to cover something up doesn't tend to work too well.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

1?

And that's a $500,000 hit. It's a lot of money.

Well, that would be his choice I guess. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him because of that too?

Besides that, it's very debatable that he has even one year left, he's been put on waivers half a dozen times this year and is currently in the AHL. Even if he did receive an offer, I very much doubt Scott would turn it down on principal because he's mad/sad the NHL 'screwed' him. I want to quit my job every day but I don't because I want to do right by my family because they come first, not my ego.

Maybe John Scott is different, who knows? I guess he is in the position of being a millionaire so it's different as he has the means to take his ball and go home. He also has a full NHL pension to fall on, so he doesn't have to work another day in his life if he doesn't want to, so there's that.

[Textcritic]

If you missed Friedman this morning, then you really do need to listen to him and Warrener in the AM segment, which is now posted on the FAN960 archives.

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I don't think so - I don't think most fans even knew who John Scott was before they voted - they just saw it as a yuk to make a mockery of the NHL's own bush league stupidity in allowing them to choose anyone they want. They could have chosen Homer Simpson and done the same thing (dunno - maybe they had to pick from a list though).

I don't think the option was there to select a player not at one time in the season on an NHL roster.

But beside that, two important things have come from this: First, while not everyone was laughing at Scott, a good number of the voters most certainly were. A number of the NHL players probably were, and according to Friedman, there were also plenty who were upset and embarrassed by it. A good number of the ASG attendees would be laughing at Scott as he stumbled around, impeded by his painfully obvious inability to play the same game at the same level.

When there are people laughing at his expense, it is not okay. Friedman equated it to online bullying, and I think he is right. Preventing John Scott from participating in the ASG is in some respects for his own protection. It would be unforgettably bad.

Second, there is something to be said for earning your way, and this is what Warrener was getting at in his take: John Scott KNOWS that he is not an NHL All Star, and yet he for all appearances seems to have no problem with pretending he is one. On some level, that's not right. Sure, Scott would probably be among the most appreciative participants, but what of the HUNDREDS of other MUCH MORE viable would-be participants who do not have the chance to go, because they are not bad enough to be the butt end of an exceptionally juvenile joke? Sure, his teammates and other NHLPA members have shrugged it off as no big deal—and to those usual suspects who have been before, and will be invited to attend again, it is surely no big deal. But I am not convinced that there are not NHL players who are disgusted by what has happened, and likely bitter about how Scott has chosen to respond, and rightly so.

The question needs to be raised: Why did John Scott decide to attend upon knowing all of this? According to Friedman, there is some belief that this is his way of "sticking it" to the League: They have cost him tens of thousands of dollars in suspensions and fines, and he feels justified in recouping this lost income through his ASG participation bonus. It's an objectionable motivation, in the light of Scott's past transgressions which have endangered the safety and well being of other players. It's an attempt to do an end-run around the penalties he has legitimately incurred for breaking the rules of the game.

Originally Posted by taxbuster

The blame falls squarely on the nimrods at the NHL head office - and if anyone is laughing at anyone, it should be us, at them.

As always, trying to cover something up doesn't tend to work too well.

NO! The most reliable reports from EVERY source assert that the NHL has had NOTHING to do with preventing John Scott from participating in the ASG. Don Maloney has emphatically affirmed that he made a hockey trade that included Scott because he needed the roster space. The Coyotes are in the middle of a tightly contested playoff race for the first time in four years, in a market that DESPERATELY needs the exposure and the guaranteed playoff revenue that accompanies it. He made a trade that he felt he needed to make with some urgency in an effort to ensure that his club stay ahead of the pack. Those who are suggesting that he could have held off until after the ASG are being ridiculous. If this is something he believes needed to happen for the best of the Coyotes on the ice and in the standings, then Maloney is not going to sacrifice five games in the interim to maintain Scott's ASG eligibility.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

1?

And that's a $500,000 hit. It's a lot of money.

Arizona wasn't giving him another contract.

Originally Posted by taxbuster

As always, trying to cover something up doesn't tend to work too well.

What's been covered up?
Scott hasn't been ruled ineligible yet. He almost certainly will be but that isn't because he was traded, it's because he's not an NHL player. If you really want to believe that the NHL forced two of their clubs to make a trade I suppose I won't be able to convince you different. Arizona could have simply assigned Scott to the AHL (which they did) or the ECHL and he would still be ineligible for the game.

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

The fans who voted for him are not laughing at him, they are laughing at the All Star Game.

They were making a mockery of the AS game by voting in the worst possible player. How is that not making Scott the butt of the joke?

[codynw]

Why are people acting like Scott is/should be offended that he got voted in? It sounds like he fully embraced it and was really looking forward to playing in the game.

And really, you think he'll be embarrassed because he can't keep up? Do you really think anyone will be trying all that hard? Guys at the ASG float more than the Oilers in March.

[GGG]

I had a look through the voting info and don't see anywhere where it said that you had to be on an NHL roster at the time of the All Star game to be eligible.

It just states the leading vote getters will be Captains. I realized its likely implied but was there anything written down anywhere that would allow the NHL to disqualify him because he isn't on a roster?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I thought Friedman was missing the point (maybe he isn't and I'm missing the point). I'm assuming that the fans who voted for Scott were making fun of the NHL and the All Star Game in particular. Scott just happened to be the player they chose to vote for to make a mokery of the All Star Game. The fans who voted for him are not laughing at him, they are laughing at the All Star Game.

Oh, Scott was - if not the butt of the joke - very close to it at first. But the way he has handled it gained him a fair bit of personal popularity. And that, I think, is one of the major reasons why this is turning into a public relations disaster for the NHL. Friedman's take is fairly interesting because his seems to be one of very few that is defending the NHL's position. (edit: equating it to 'online bullying' is just embarrassing for Friedman though.) Most others (give or take a git like Damien Cox) are lambasting the NHL for its handling of the situation. Even outlets like Forbes are starting to take on the 'NHLPA should investigate/file a grievance' position.

Ironically, removing Scott from the game has done more harm to the NHL's reputation than leaving him in would have. And as everyone in the media has been pointing out, toying with the vote has pretty much become an annual tradition among NHL fans. Can't fault anyone but the NHL for failing to learn the lessons of the past several years.

[wretched34]

Honest question.... if John Scott had not recently been named an All-Star captain, due too an Internet hoax, would the recent trade be news?

Honestly, I bet if the whole all-star fiasco wasn't going on, real hockey fans would be overjoyed that John Scott had been traded, and buried in the minors, with little to no chance of ever playing another NHL game.
There are a mass of fans around the league, and on CP that openly oppose the exact type of player that he is, but because he was the punchline of an Internet troll job, all of a sudden he's a victim?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

@textcritic because there is too much post to quote but you can't possibly believe that Scott will literally stumble around and embarrass the nhl. He's an nhler. Not Goldberg from the mighty ducks. He won't be very good but then again the competition will not be tough these guys coast around the entire time.

Lets also remember that with the exception of his debunking of the NHL conspiracy stuff, regarding the trade itself, that whole Friedman segment was just his opinion. He didn't really offer any insider info.

John Scott absolutely was chosen as a joke because the fans were voting it as a joke want to expose the NHL stupid system by choosing the worst player possible. That being said once he was voted in a large number of fans including people on this forum supported his going to the All-Star game. I also believe most fans who have since supported Scott do so for one of two reasons. Either they agree and think the NHL's voting system is stupid or they think it's kind of cool that a guy who never otherwise would be able to go was able to go. I think it is nothing short of silly to even suggest that the NHL or anyone else is protecting Scott by not letting him go. And I firmly believe that most players support his going because they also think the All-Star game is somewhat of a joke.

[heep223]

He should really just quietly back out at this point.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GGG

I had a look through the voting info and don't see anywhere where it said that you had to be on an NHL roster at the time of the All Star game to be eligible.

It just states the leading vote getters will be Captains. I realized its likely implied but was there anything written down anywhere that would allow the NHL to disqualify him because he isn't on a roster?

I didn't vote this year, but in past years where I did vote for a write-in candidate, the name I typed had to match a name already in the NHL player list, otherwise, it would remain blank.