[News] Brent Seabrook added to Flames Player Development staff

[Erick Estrada]

Remember these players were minding their own business simply focusing on winning a Stanley Cup when Aldrich assaulted Beach and now they are somehow being dragged into what he did because people that know absolutely nothing about what happened inside the building are making assumptions.

Originally Posted by Coach

Well if the truth is too hard to tell, people will keep thinking what they think.

Let's face it. When the players come out and say they didn't know you don't believe them anyway. Some of you simply want them all to burn because of the act of a single individual.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Let's face it. When the players come out and say they didn't know you don't believe them anyway. Some of you simply want them all to burn because of the act of a single individual.

We aren't able to believe all of them because no one has acknowledged otherwise. I personally can only go off of what I know about team dynamics overall and that if the majority of the team knew something it was probably the MAIN team (ie people who weren't in-out up-down, or people who joined very late).

If anyone from this team came forward tomorrow and said "I knew about it, most of us did. I called him a f**. So did others and I'll leave it to them to come forward. It was stupid and wrong and I've been trying to be better since" or anything like that, they would instantly absolve themselves of the smoke. It's the pretending you weren't an apart of it that's infuriating. I think because most of us probably were equally as insensitive at points in our lives, we feel like we have to protect that part of it, but we're protecting the wrong thing.

[Calgary4LIfe]

What do we know exactly?


Seabrook wasn't just 'one of the players'. He was one of the leaders. Not only that, he was Toews' sounding board. I just trashed Toews for being re-signed. Bowman. Everyone else. I have been consistent with my thoughts about everyone involved. We know the players mocked Kyle after he was raped. We know Toews was the captain, and we know that Seabrook was the guy that Toews often came to for advice. Seabrook wasn't just 'one of the guys'.


I have expected 'something' to be said in that interview about it. Maybe a carefully scripted question asked and Seabrook respondiong with something like:


"What happened to Kyle was awful, and shouldn't have ever happened. I am going to do my part here to make sure that stuff like this never happens to these kids in this organization."


No admitting fault, no taking responsibility.. just saying something about being part of the solution moving forward at least. Instead, it was crickets. Maybe that comment wouldn't satisfy everyone, but at least it would be something, and you move on. Instead, it feels like things are still being swept under the rug, and Seabrook is being placed into a position of power over a bunch of kids trying to make it into the NHL, just like Kyle was trying to do when he got raped. I just hope this is not lost on Seabrook.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wow ...

The bolded is way over the top.

If that being pointed out is making you uncomfortable maybe you should stop and re-think how you're approaching this. You're not a fan of making assumptions without all the information but refuse to look at the information available that spells out what happened. "Your ADD won't let you read the report." Isn't a good enough excuse if you want to wade into something as serious as this and try and claim we just need more information without looking at the information we do have.

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

This where you lose the plot. Your level of outrage is your right, but people hear are telling you how they see the issue and how their outrage is not the level of yours. I think we can all agree that there are levels of complicity in this situation:

Perpetrator- can rot in hell
Management (Quennville, Bowman, other coaches and front office)- Suspension from the NHL for at least some time, arguably forever.
Players who insulted victim-Should have been suspended, but I can't see any world where that would be forever
Players who knew and did nothing-shameful act, open to ridicule, but suspension worthy? That is the discussion
Players who knew nothing-nothing

Sure, but when you have former players and reports coming out making it very clear that every one knew, why are some people trying to argue Seabrook should be absolved of wrong doing because "we don't know enough,"?

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I don't recall the outrage when Kane moved on. Maybe it was there, but it wasn't based on homerism. He made millions more in earnings. Toews there was some discussion, but more so that he probably isn't a good player anymore. No real outrage.

Wait till a Kane thread pops up now, I'll be there reminding everyone what he was a part of just the same. When Kane first moved, what the Blackhawks did was still a top discussion. Now I feel compelled to remind everyone with what that Organization got away with and what it's members did during that time.

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Now we have Seabrook, a guy that is what? A part time player development coach? A guy that knows how to play defence and is now teaching defense? That is where we need to draw the line? The level of outrage does not match the harmful conduct nor the position Seabrook has been placed.

Sure, bring him in. Just remember the type of person he is. Remember he was a leader until it was hard. And remember the response his presence will get.

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

No team is beyond terrible behaviour (Canucks: see Virtanenen, Aquilini, Bertuzi, etc.). In fact any organization of any size will have these issues. I am at a smallish company, and unfortunately internal investigations of all shapes and sizes is part of my job. Sometimes that results in firings, but more often it results in more training, reprimands and the like. Not blackballing an individual forever, which seems to be your solution, unless you have other ideas you would like to share.

And I've never hesitated to call out Virtanen and Aquilini, and I am not about to start stopping. But Aquilini and Virtanen are also permanently stained with their actions, Virtanen with a sexual assault and Aquilini with just being a general piece of #### who abuses immigrant workers. I don't expect Seabrook to be blackballed forever. I do hope he, along with everyone else in the organization wear this mark for the rest of their lives, or at least until something resembling an actual punishment or act of contrition is seen. I hope teams will always remember what the players on the Blackhawks did when it was time to do the right thing. Until we see something of a punishment or an indicaton actual contrition I will never hesitate to remind people what happened on that team in the name of winning.

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Maybe all of the things people want Seabrook to do to make amends for whatever he did or didn't know or did or didn't do was done privately. Not everything needs to be carried out in the public domain.

Not everything does but this is a situation where if we want to make sure stuff like this never happens again, we need to make sure that the punishments and apologies are out in the open. Everyone even tangentially involved admitting a huge mistake was made is incredibly important here.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I just can't get behind the bolded statement. You simply can't assume everyone involved with the Hawks at that time is guilty simply because you don't know the facts and the truth. You are painting with broad strokes and I hope you don't find yourself in a situation where you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Well good news. We have facts. We literally have a report and players stating what happened and what was known and by whom. Was it a "Wrong place, wrong time" thing? For a lot of them, sure. I sincerely doubt anyone on the Blackhawks said "I sure hope one of my teammates gets sexually assaulted!" But even in that situation, when you have a chance to do the right thing even if it's just bad timing you still need to do it. No one on the Blackhawks did at the time and very few have tried to make up for it after the fact.

[Bingo]

Not sure a reply to 40 different people is the proof that you're not going overboard that you think it is.

You pointed out things that I haven't done, so I'm not uncomfortable at all. I had a similar view to Seravelli's Gaudreau tweet last year when he got run over as well. It isn't a Flame thing for me.

To me there is a difference between knowing something and not coming forward (I'd likely come forward so I'm not saying it's ok) and being part of the group ridiculing the victim.

If Seabrook is part of the latter group ... like say JT Miller was in Vancouver with Pettersson than he's garbage.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

A little online chatter is barely scrutiny, let alone rage. It definitely isn't terminating someone's life.

The poster who brought this up in here seems to be full on raging about it.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not sure a reply to 40 different people is the proof that you're not going overboard that you think it is.

I'm sorry you feel that I'm going overboard. Personally, I think I've been quite restrained, but have zero issue with "going overboard" on this issue. Some issues are worth being loud about. This is one of them.

Originally Posted by Bingo

You pointed out things that I haven't done, so I'm not uncomfortable at all. I had a similar view to Seravelli's Gaudreau tweet last year when he got run over as well. It isn't a Flame thing for me.

You were downplaying Seabrook's role and actions saying we needed more information while jokingly bragging about not reading the information available. That's a big thing I've been banging on about here. People acting like we don't know what happened. Comparing a ####ty tweet to knowing and staying quiet about a sexual assault are just not in the same realm.

Originally Posted by Bingo

To me there is a difference between knowing something and not coming forward (I'd likely come forward so I'm not saying it's ok) and being part of the group ridiculing the victim.

If Seabrook is part of the latter group ... like say JT Miller was in Vancouver with Pettersson than he's garbage.

I agree, there is a difference but I don't think Seabrook should get a pass even if it's the former. I'd be a hell of a lot less diplomatic (as we know I've been in the past) if it was the latter.

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The poster who brought this up in here seems to be full on raging about it.

I prefer "Full throatedly calling out" as opposed to raging, but am not necessarily against raging if we get there.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I'm sorry you feel that I'm going overboard. Personally, I think I've been quite restrained, but have zero issue with "going overboard" on this issue. Some issues are worth being loud about. This is one of them.




You were downplaying Seabrook's role and actions saying we needed more information while jokingly bragging about not reading the information available. That's a big thing I've been banging on about here. People acting like we don't know what happened. Comparing a ####ty tweet to knowing and staying quiet about a sexual assault are just not in the same realm.



I agree, there is a difference but I don't think Seabrook should get a pass even if it's the former. I'd be a hell of a lot less diplomatic (as we know I've been in the past) if it was the latter.






I prefer "Full throatedly calling out" as opposed to raging, but am not necessarily against raging if we get there.

I'm not a fan of adding internal thought to others. You are doing it frequently.

I don't feel I tried to play anything down.
I don't feel I'm trying to support a hire or a team.
I'm not telling others to re-think things.
Accusing me of using an excuse for not reading? A little unfair ... sorry I have ADD!
I never downplayed his role, I asked what we know about his role.

If you think I'm a foe in a fight against sexual assault and bullying you've really missed your mark.

I just personally (don't need you to agree) think a person shouldn't be written off without knowing how involved they were in the whole thing. If it turns out Seabrook was part of the ridicule / bullying part of this story then I'm disappointed the Flames hired him without knowing or while knowing.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm not a fan of adding internal thought to others. You are doing it frequently.

I don't feel I tried to play anything down.
I don't feel I'm trying to support a hire or a team.
I'm not telling others to re-think things.
Accusing me of using an excuse for not reading? A little unfair ... sorry I have ADD!
I never downplayed his role, I asked what we know about his role.

If you think I'm a foe in a fight against sexual assault and bullying you've really missed your mark.

By saying "We need more information," when we have the information I feel like you're playing it down. When you say "We need more information," when we have the information I feel like you're giving a passive defense of the hiring. Should I be asking "What do you mean by that?" Before jumping to that thought? Yes, you are right I should. Curiosity is important.


Is using ADD an excuse to not read the information a good excuse? No. I have ADD. I have read it. While I do feel more curiosity was necessary on my end (with hindsight), I do think that before you stated we needed more information you should have taken in all the information we do have.

I don't think you're a foe in the fight. I don't think anyone I am arguing with here is an enemy on this. I do think some people are not realizing just how serious this was and how even one player vocally speaking up at the time would have gone a long way and how even now how important it is that people who were apart of that organization speak up. Brent Seabrook was a leader on that team and let a young man's life get turned upside down and his career ruined. Again, he was not the only one to fail here but we cannot downplay the fact he was a part of that failure.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

By saying "We need more information," when we have the information I feel like you're playing it down. When you say "We need more information," when we have the information I feel like you're giving a passive defense of the hiring. Should I be asking "What do you mean by that?" Before jumping to that thought? Yes, you are right I should. Curiosity is important.


Is using ADD an excuse to not read the information a good excuse? No. I have ADD. I have read it. While I do feel more curiosity was necessary on my end (with hindsight), I do think that before you stated we needed more information you should have taken in all the information we do have.

I don't think you're a foe in the fight. I don't think anyone I am arguing with here is an enemy on this. I do think some people are not realizing just how serious this was and how even one player vocally speaking up at the time would have gone a long way and how even now how important it is that people who were apart of that organization speak up. Brent Seabrook was a leader on that team and let a young man's life get turned upside down and his career ruined. Again, he was not the only one to fail here but we cannot downplay the fact he was a part of that failure.

You felt wrong.

How would anyone not know how serious this was?

I have real concerns of a baby with the bathwater society that we seem to live in. Staying quiet isn't ideal but it doesn't make you a monster. Everyone has reasons for how they act.

Shame you had to question people's integrity to make a point that we all got in the first place.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You felt wrong.

How would anyone not know how serious this was?

Read through this thread. Read your own posts. You didn't think it was serious enough to justify reading the report. Just say we needed more information.

Originally Posted by Bingo

I have real concerns of a baby with the bathwater society that we seem to live in. Staying quiet isn't ideal but it doesn't make you a monster. Everyone has reasons for how they act.

Having a reason doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Shame you had to question people's integrity to make a point that we all got in the first place.

I still don't think you get it. You're still looking for reasons to justify "waiting for more information."

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Read through this thread. Read your own posts. You didn't think it was serious enough to justify reading the report. Just say we needed more information.




Having a reason doesn't make it right.




I still don't think you get it. You're still looking for reasons to justify "waiting for more information."

Still telling me what I'm thinking. And you don't really have a right to question my morality for not reading something that I would have great difficulty reading.

You don't know what I do or don't think is serious.

I don't need to justify waiting for more information as I see this differently than you do, and I've been clear about that.

I don't need you to agree with me. I don't need to talk down to you because you think differently than me as to what level of info or what level of admission is required to write someone off as unemployable.

[CF84]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Read through this thread. Read your own posts. You didn't think it was serious enough to justify reading the report. Just say we needed more information.




Having a reason doesn't make it right.




I still don't think you get it. You're still looking for reasons to justify "waiting for more information."

This is just a question since I haven't read the reports in a while, but were the players without a doubt aware of sexual assaults, or were they just aware of a video coach and a player in a possible relationship or one night stand? The coaches and management knew it was an unwanted assault without a doubt, but how do we know that the players also knew it was sexual assault?

I'm not challenging you as I truly remember being very upset about the entire cover-up when I read everything. I do remember being upset at the entire organization and I seem to recall that the players also knew some things...what were those things though? That a player had a consensual hook-up with a staff member? Or that a player was assaulted by a staff member. There is a huge difference and If you know without a doubt that the players had as much information as management then they were obviously in the wrong.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CF84

This is just a question since I haven't read the reports in a while, but we're the players without a doubt aware of sexual assaults, or were they just aware of a video coach and a player in a possible relationship or one night stand? The coaches and management knew it was an unwanted assault without a doubt, but how do we know that the players also knew it was sexual assault?

I'm not challenging you as I truly remember being very upset about the entire cover-up when I read everything. I do remember being upset at the entire organization and I seem to recall that the players also knew some things...what were those things though? That a player had a consensual hook-up with a staff member? Or that a player was assaulted by a staff member. There is a huge difference and If you know without a doubt that the players had as much information as management then they were obviously in the wrong.

According to the players who've spoken at all, like Toews, they didn't hear of anything until the following (10-11 season) training camp. Kane denied hearing anything but rumours but not details. Hossa denied hearing anything. Seabrook hasn't said anything, nor has he been mentioned by name. It's all inference and innuendo. At the time Seabrook was 24 and Toews was 22. So while they were leaders they were still younger players compared to Sharp, Campbell and Keith. Toews was the capyain in the cup year, with Sharp and Keith as ACs. Seabrook got an A the next year (oddly he had one in 08-09, but not 09-10).

It's clear he was a core guy at the time. How much he knew - who knows?

[Red_Baron]

I like this hire. I've met him due to his kid playing flag football and I have a favourable impression of him.

I have a feeling what the players actually knew and what the keyboard warriors of the internet have decided what they ought to have known are two very different things.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Super creepy vibes from posts and thanks by certain posters here.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

I have a feeling what the players actually knew and what the keyboard warriors of the internet have decided what they ought to have known are two very different things.

And what about a 3rd party report and literally other players on the team have said they know?


You people are ridiculous. I am not making assumptions or guessing. We have been told who knew by people in the ####ing room. Them denying it only buries them further in my eyes.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

And what about a 3rd party report and literally other players on the team have said they know?


You people are ridiculous. I am not making assumptions or guessing. We have been told who knew by people in the ####ing room. Them denying it only buries them further in my eyes.

You are fighting a losing fight. We hate them when they age oilers it’s on when they are Flames. Not to mention the freaks liking the posts about it.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Coach

I think it stems from a lack of accountability for the people actually responsible for the situation and very few people coming forward to speak honestly about their own part in it (basically only people who say they didn't know). It taints the whole group of people because no one knows where the responsibility starts or ends. For example, from FBS's list:



None of the bolded happened. The NHL itself is complicit by not doing this IMO. So if you agree that the above should be held to that level of accountability, but none of it happened, the only thing left is the last thing mentioned "shame and ridicule" and that's what's happening. If everyone eventually just shrugs it off and it goes away, it will be like every other version of this type of nonsense and continue to happen. So yeah maybe Blaster and myself and some others can get a bit preachy and annoying about it. If no one does, it will just be forgotten about. OR they could actually just not hire these people and avoid it. I don't feel bad for the lost opportunity for millionaires to work in a single, very niche field. There are lots of fields. Go buy a farm.

I do think it's owed a public acknowledgment, because young people are still being sent to work under these people and deserve to know. I don't really care if Beach personally forgives them or not. That's his strength, not theirs. They have still yet to do the right thing.

I guess that is where we disagree. Hold those that should be accountable, accountable. It doesn't make sense to me that in absence of that accountability we should hold those down the scale to higher standard, or take the pound of flesh from them, because others got away with something.

I am not saying Seabrook is beyond reproach and shouldn't be asked these questions. However, I do think that his hiring and those that don't see it as a moral failing by the Flames is some form of homerism or whataboutism.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Super creepy vibes from posts and thanks by certain posters here.

Want to elaborate?

I'm not seeing a lot of defense of sexual assault or bullying in this topic.