Bill Peters/Mike Babcock/Marc Crawford/ETC

[RonMexico]

4 minutes ago, jackofwind said:

Showing an understanding of the severity of their actions and apologizing publicly and directly to the person(s) without the addition of legalese, excuses that detract or deflect blame, or hiding behind a corporate curtain.

 

I'm all for giving people another chance when they demonstrate that they understand the errors they've made and own up to them fully, without trying to worm out of them at all, and show that they've changed the way that they conduct themselves. None of the coaches so far have done those things.

 

 

No matter what, people will just never be satisfied until heads roll. You could come up with the most personal, heartfelt apology and some internet trolls will claim, INSINCERE! HE JUST WANTS TO KEEP HIS JOB. 

[Fateless]

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I really do agree with Robin Lehner's take.

 

It's the same with history. There's good things that Hitler did (believe it or not). Yet because we focus all the negative, we fail to see the OVERALL contribution a person has done. There's also the issue with motives. It doesn't mean Hitler was right to kill all the 'crippled'/mentally disabled & Jews, as well as the Poles and other minorities.

 

We can agree/disagree on the motives. We can also interpret things differently too based on the same pieces of evidence.

If we go back far enough, we can dig up enough dirt on almost everybody, just because it came to light. Does it mean that the past should be ignored? No. But at the same time, judging people based on the past which DOES NOT NECESSARILY reflect their present is fallacious.

 

We've heard of previously racist people that have renounced their past. People DO change. But if we are to go back to what they did or said in the past, we fail to see who they have become.

Look, I actually agree with a lot of what Lehner has to say (not all, but a lot). However, using Hitler as your analogy really just baffles me. Some people do not deserve a second chance, no matter how earnestly they seek one. Actions and words have consequences and while most things in life can be forgiven and moved past, some cannot. As a lawyer, I often see Court cases where someone who has committed a crime feels honest remorse about their actions after the fact. That does not mean they get a second chance and avoid the consequences for their actions. We'd have anarchy in the streets if the a Judge threw down their gavel and let a murderer walk free because felt true remorse after committing the crime. Sometimes change isn't enough. 

[jackofwind]

2 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

 

No matter what, people will just never be satisfied until heads roll. You could come up with the most personal, heartfelt apology and some internet trolls will claim, INSINCERE! HE JUST WANTS TO KEEP HIS JOB. 

Trolls can do what they want, they're actually way more of a minority than people who are active on the internet give them credit for. If what you're saying is true Trudeau would never have been re-elected.

[joe-max]

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I really do agree with Robin Lehner's take.

 

It's the same with history. There's good things that Hitler did (believe it or not). Yet because we focus all the negative, we fail to see the OVERALL contribution a person has done. There's also the issue with motives. It doesn't mean Hitler was right to kill all the 'crippled'/mentally disabled & Jews, as well as the Poles and other minorities.

 

We can agree/disagree on the motives. We can also interpret things differently too based on the same pieces of evidence.

If we go back far enough, we can dig up enough dirt on almost everybody, just because it came to light. Does it mean that the past should be ignored? No. But at the same time, judging people based on the past which DOES NOT NECESSARILY reflect their present is fallacious.

 

We've heard of previously racist people that have renounced their past. People DO change. But if we are to go back to what they did or said in the past, we fail to see who they have become.

Now, that's a comparison...

[Gurn]

2 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Most of the coaches I can think of that have won Stanley cups are hot heads, it seems to work. 

If 95% of coaches were hot heads, does it not stand to reason that most teams that won the cup had a hot headed coach?

[Monty]

19 minutes ago, jackofwind said:

Showing an understanding of the severity of their actions and apologizing publicly and directly to the person(s) without the addition of legalese, excuses that detract or deflect blame, or hiding behind a corporate curtain.

 

I'm all for giving people another chance when they demonstrate that they understand the errors they've made and own up to them fully, without trying to worm out of them at all, and show that they've changed the way that they conduct themselves. None of the coaches so far have done those things.

 

I agree, this would be nice.
 

However, in these specific cases, I don’t think you’ll see that happening. And whether we like the reason or not, that doesn’t matter. That won’t happen because we’re dealing with organizations who have contracts in place with Bill Peters and Marc Crawford, at the moment.

 

For the Peters situation, from all that we’ve heard, isn’t 100% over yet. The NHL and the NHLPA may have other pending legal action in process. And because Peters has $6M left on his contract, the him and his lawyer have that to sort out. 
 

With Crawford, he’s currently employed. Him releasing a statement, for something that’s certainly different, with ex players backing him, even with Sopel stating positives to how his career turned out through Crawford’s coaching, makes for a much different scenario. And, with what Lehner was referring to, it seems like the motivation tactics of Crawford is a little more grey, as it seems that was more accepted and taught to those coaches his age as well. So admitted guilt and apologizing in his case looks to be a little more dicey.

 

For Babcock? I haven’t heard anything there that calls for someone to apologize or for him to never coach again. Should he evolve in some areas? Absolutely. We all should. And some of the weird things he was doing are strange. The Marner one is odd. I mean, sure, the exercise could have been, “Right down names of those veterans on our team and rank them from best to worst. Now, don’t show me the list, but ask yourself, ‘Who do you want to be more like? When you’re their age, and a rookie were to make the same list, where do you want to be on that list?’” That’s a much better way. 
 

Long story short, you won’t see heartfelt, public apologies from Peters or Crawford, as it’s a lot more complicated, due to contracts, how it effects future circumstances at this time, etc.

[BrockBoester]

33 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

 

No matter what, people will just never be satisfied until heads roll. You could come up with the most personal, heartfelt apology and some internet trolls will claim, INSINCERE! HE JUST WANTS TO KEEP HIS JOB. 

This is true and it hurts. So I guess the truth does hurt.

[Toews]

1 hour ago, RonMexico said:

No matter what, people will just never be satisfied until heads roll. You could come up with the most personal, heartfelt apology and some internet trolls will claim, INSINCERE! HE JUST WANTS TO KEEP HIS JOB. 

 Why would anyone care what a troll thinks of them? Besides you are never going to get everyone's approval in life and nor should you strive to, unless you are a politician of course.

[Toyotasfan]

The internet came online 28 years ago , imagine life without it now. If it was just taken away there’s a lot of people who would be so lost. I wonder if 28 years from now wifi will be reading thoughts. maybe coaches will be accountable for their thoughts next. 

 

[Dazzle]

4 hours ago, Fateless said:

Look, I actually agree with a lot of what Lehner has to say (not all, but a lot). However, using Hitler as your analogy really just baffles me. Some people do not deserve a second chance, no matter how earnestly they seek one. Actions and words have consequences and while most things in life can be forgiven and moved past, some cannot. As a lawyer, I often see Court cases where someone who has committed a crime feels honest remorse about their actions after the fact. That does not mean they get a second chance and avoid the consequences for their actions. We'd have anarchy in the streets if the a Judge threw down their gavel and let a murderer walk free because felt true remorse after committing the crime. Sometimes change isn't enough.

There's nothing really to be baffled about.

 

I bring up a controversial figure as an example to make a point that demonizing someone is not the way to go. Often, we miss out/overlook things like context which give you a full picture. In the end, maybe the "good" that was done wasn't enough. Akim Aliu certainly didn't think Peters' apology was sincere/good enough.

 

As for you, you claim some people don't deserve a second chance. That is your position. As a lawyer, you know that the whole system revolves around the POSSIBILITY that someone might or might not change when re-entering society.

 

Of course there's consequences for our actions. But then certain people are punished harsher than others. There is, for instance, a substantial imbalance of non-white male prisoners vs white ones. What do we make of this? I know I am introducing a totally different dimension to this post, but the point I'm making is, some people DON'T get second chances, in the way you've described.

[Toews]

12 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

There's nothing really to be baffled about.

 

I bring up a controversial figure as an example to make a point that demonizing someone is not the way to go. Often, we miss out/overlook things like context which give you a full picture. In the end, maybe the "good" that was done wasn't enough. Akim Aliu certainly didn't think Peters' apology was sincere/good enough.

 

As for you, you claim some people don't deserve a second chance. That is your position. As a lawyer, you know that the whole system revolves around the POSSIBILITY that someone might or might not change when re-entering society.

 

Of course there's consequences for our actions. But then certain people are punished harsher than others. There is, for instance, a substantial imbalance of non-white male prisoners vs white ones. What do we make of this? I know I am introducing a totally different dimension to this post, but the point I'm making is, some people DON'T get second chances, in the way you've described.

Good post. I don't take much issue with the demonizing as much as dehumanizing. Subtle distinction but to me its the attempt by people to paint men who have earned some degree of notoriety as "monsters", thereby making such individuals completely unrelatable. This absolves anyone of any responsibility towards discovering the true motives behind the actions of such men. You have to understand Hitler, the man; so you can stop others who are headed down the same path as him. The same goes for terrorists, serial killers, and other violent offenders. We have to accept that these are human beings first, if we are to understand their motives and what triggers them into causing harm to their victims. 

[Dazzle]

10 minutes ago, Toews said:

Good post. I don't take much issue with the demonizing as much as dehumanizing. Subtle distinction but to me its the attempt by people to paint men who have earned some degree of notoriety as "monsters", thereby making such individuals completely unrelatable. This absolves anyone of any responsibility towards discovering the true motives behind the actions of such men. You have to understand Hitler, the man; so you can stop others who are headed down the same path as him. The same goes for terrorists, serial killers, and other violent offenders. We have to accept that these are human beings first, if we are to understand their motives and what triggers them into causing harm to their victims. 

I think this post, particularly the ones made bolded, sums up what I wanted to say, in far fewer words. Well done.

Disregarding someone, as you said, defeats the purpose of figuring out what went wrong. And we are trying to solve problems, right?

Edited December 7, 2019 by Dazzle

[Guest]

8 hours ago, jackofwind said:

Most of the hothead coaches that I can think of that have won Stanley Cups haven't been the deciding factor in their runs (ex: Babcock with his all-star Detroit team).

 

Coaches who lift their players up inspire them to play hard out of love are the ones who get their team to make unexpected Cup runs. Those are the coaches that actually make a difference rather than just being carried by a cast of all-star players.

Some proof please...  otherwise you're just creating a narrative.  I mean I know I feel this way towards bosses at various jobs, however there is no proof that this is the case in hockey.  
Crawford won a cup before.  He led the Canucks out of misery and into some really succesful seasons.  

I really enjoyed reading Lehner's interview, good stuff. 

[ShawnAntoski]

I hope this will lead to positive change but with human nature, it would more than likely end up hurting the victims or creating new victims and eating itself.  

Edited December 7, 2019 by ShawnAntoski

[Westcoasting]

8 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I'm not, nor have I ever been a fan of Chris Chelios, but this story (if true) makes me like him just a little bit:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl/chris-chelios-pounded-beers-on-bench-after-mike-babcock-benched-him-at-winter-classic/ar-BBXS831?li=AAggNb9

I've heard stories about Guy Lafleur smoking a cigarette in the penalty box, but Chelly drinking beer on the bench takes the prize.

 

One problem with the story though: Where wer his kids getting the beer from? Was Mom in on it?

His oldest was probably close to age at that time, if not close enough perhaps.

[Monty]

Wondering if Dan Carcillo is going to be someone people stop listening to, soon.

 

Another story from The Athletic. This one is regards to Peter Laviolette and the Ville Leino incident. Dan Carcillo appears to be really off on this one, to the point where Daniel Briere, Scott Hartnell, Austin Watson, and even Ville Leino himself defends Laviolette. 
 

Appears as though Carcillo isn’t taking the appropriate time to think and talk to other players before he makes accusations.

 

Quote

With the sport of hockey mired in a crisis because of accusations of abusive conduct by its coaches, Predators coach Peter Laviolette stepped out of his office after practice Friday to address two allegations.

On Wednesday, Daniel Carcillo, who played for Laviolette with the Philadelphia Flyers from 2009-11, appeared on a local radio show and said, “There were a lot of things that annoyed me about him. He was one of the guys that liked to be the ‘rah-rah’ guy, send you out to fight when you know that he never fought. There’s a lot of stuff that I don’t agree with what he did, his coaching methods.”

ESPN’s Greg Wyshynski spoke to retired forward Ville Leino, whom Laviolette struck in the head during a February 2011 game when they were with the Flyers. Clips of the incident resurfaced on social media after an incident between Mike Babcock and Mitch Marner became public, and Bill Peters resigned after players said he physically and verbally abused them.

“There are lot of emotions in the game,” Leino told ESPN. “Coaches get fired up and things happen. I don’t think Peter tried to hit me, and it looks worse in the video than it was. Peter was a very passionate and emotional coach. That made him good, but sometimes stuff like this happened. Nevertheless, it shouldn’t happen.”

Laviolette refuted Carcillo’s claim and provided context for the Leino situation.

“First was a suggestion that I used my position of power inside of a locker room to bully or ask players or challenge players to go out there and fight,” Laviolette said. “That couldn’t be anything further from the truth. Do I want my teams to play hard? Yes. Do I want them to be physical? Yes. Is there fighting in the game? Yes. But there’s an insinuation that I would challenge players to go out there and do that. That is not true.

“Secondly, there’s an article that came out (Friday) that was brought to my attention about punching Ville Leino in the head. In the scope of where we are right now in today’s world with regard to coaches, I can tell you that physical abuse from me is the furthest thing from the truth. That Ville Leino video clip and the GIF that shows me nicking his helmet and his helmet bobbing up and down over and over again, you can interpret it a whole bunch of different ways. For me, I had called a timeout. I was trying to get my team motivated, and I went to punch my fist into my hand. I nicked the back of his helmet, and by no means was it meant as any physical abuse, nor have I ever had any physical abuse with the players.

“For the longest time, I thought it was funny watching the GIF play over and over again, knowing that it couldn’t be the furthest thing from the truth. Now that I’ve heard that there’s an article that’s talked about it, and it’s kind of been lumped in with what’s going on, I just wanted to get ahead of that. Ville Leino said that I apologized to him. I can’t even remember addressing it. If I did, that’s great, because it was something that was accidental at the time where I missed my hand and nicked his helmet. But I just wanted to get in front of these things, because I think both statements are incorrect.

“It’s obviously a really hot topic right now, and I can’t even pretend to comment on any situation that I’ve not been a part of. The reason why I’m commenting on these ones is because I know myself and I know how I’ve handled myself for almost 20 years as a coach. I would rather just get in front of it. … If people really thought that I was punching somebody in the head, then that would’ve come forward a long time ago.”

Daniel Carcillo

 

✔@CarBombBoom13

 · 7h

 

At the 22:50 mark, I said (about Laviolette) “he was ok...there were a lot of things that annoyed me about him. He was one of the guys that liked to be the ra ra guy and send you out to fight when you know he never fought”

Never made mention of the roomhttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-neutral-zone-12-4-19/id1441016521?i=1000458714365 … https://twitter.com/adamvingan/status/1203024019081039874 …

‎The Neutral Zone On 104-5 The Zone: The Neutral Zone 12-4-19 on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The Neutral Zone On 104-5 The Zone, Ep The Neutral Zone 12-4-19 - Dec 4, 2019

podcasts.apple.com

Adam Vingan

 

✔@AdamVingan

 

Peter Laviolette addresses @wyshynski's article today regarding Ville Leino as well as a recent allegation made by Daniel Carcillo on @NeutralZone1045.

Daniel Carcillo

 

✔@CarBombBoom13

 

2/ If u are a coach in the #NHL & you’d like to respond to allegations, don’t misrepresent the allegation u r being accused of

Although that happened in this instance, good on Lavy for trying 2 grab the bull by the horns n get out in front of this

I will have no further comment

 

49

5:20 PM - Dec 6, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

See Daniel Carcillo's other Tweets

 

 

 

 

Reached for comment Friday, Carcillo said Laviolette misrepresented what he said.

“That’s what coaches do,” he told The Athletic, pointing out that Laviolette’s left hand didn’t leave his side when he hit Leino. “Even though they might not ask directly, when you’re not known for your defense, if he pulls a winger off in the defensive zone, and we have the last change because we’re on home ice, and it happens to be lining up against their tough guy, that tells you that it’s time for you to fight. There were things that were said in morning skates, and he’d get in your face and challenge you. It was cool for like six months, but then it goes in one ear and out the other when it happens every day. … Those were kind of some of the things that annoyed me, and eventually, you just shut down and you stop listening, and then you don’t get played. It was a lot of head games with that guy. There’s a lot of things that I don’t agree with, but it is what it is.”

Burn Unit@ClintonPapin

 

Replying to @CarBombBoom13

 

What about this guy? Laviolette on camera punching Leino in the head. Likely not an isolated incident.

 

 

5

10:24 AM - Dec 3, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

See Burn Unit's other Tweets

 

 

 

 

Ex-Flyers forwards Daniel Briere and Scott Hartnell played in the game in which the incident with Leino took place, and both told The Athletic that they didn’t believe there was malicious intent on Laviolette’s part.

“I didn’t even see it live,” Briere said. “I had no idea. I remember seeing it later that night I think on a clip on social media. To be honest, it’s been so long. From what I remember, I thought he was kind of yelling at the whole team and kind of hit (Leino) by accident. I never felt that there was any intent to try to hurt him or that it was directed at Ville. The whole time that I played for Peter, I never saw him and I don’t remember seeing him ever attack physically or verbally someone directly. To me, that was very out of the ordinary, so that’s why I never thought twice about it.”

“It definitely wasn’t a punch to the head,” Hartnell said. “It was a timeout. He was frustrated. He was trying to get us fired up to get back in the game. He’s intense. He’s an emotional leader. I don’t consider that a hit to the head. It was a pump-up speech that he was trying to smack his hand. It hit one-eighth of a guy’s helmet, and it looked like he punched him in the head. It was something that’s maybe being blown a little bit of proportion right now, obviously, but I’ve got nothing but respect for (Laviolette). There was no sort of abuse, nothing emotionally, physically, verbally.”

Hartnell, who fought 67 times during his career, including 34 times with the Flyers, said Laviolette never coerced him to do so.

“I never felt at all pressured by (Laviolette) or any coach, be that (John) Tortorella, John Stevens, Barry Trotz,” Hartnell said. “I never heard Peter Laviolette say to any one of Jody Shelley, Riley Cote, anybody like that when we were playing for Philly to go out there and make things happen to change the swing of the game. I would say that’s false.”

Predators forward Austin Watson echoed Hartnell’s sentiments.

“I can’t speak for anybody else’s experience or how events might have been interpreted,” he said. “I can say that over the last four or five years of playing here, I think I’ve fought 26 times, around that, and not one of those instances have I ever felt pressured or told to go out there and fight. In my experience with (Laviolette), that’s not his nature. … In no way, shape or form have I ever felt pressured by (Laviolette) or told to (fight) or felt like he used any sort of influence over me to go fight anybody.

“I can say that over the last two years, and even before that, I have been dealing with my fair share of off-ice issues. I can say that on any given day, I feel comfortable going into that coaching office and having a conversation with (Laviolette). He is a fiery coach. I’d go through a wall for him. He’s a great motivator, and he has a passion for the game. When it comes to those sorts of things, it is left open to interpretation, I guess. You can’t take anything away from each individual player’s personality or mental health issues or anything like that. I have them. I have plenty of them. It is a sensitive time right now, but when it comes to (Laviolette), I’ve never experienced a situation where he’s ever crossed the line for me. For someone that battles depression, anxiety, alcoholism, all those sorts of things, at no point has any of that triggered me.”

 

[gttxc]

11 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I

 

It's the same with history. There's good things that Hitler did (believe it or not). Yet because we focus all the negative, we fail to see the OVERALL contribution a person has done. There's also the issue with motives. It doesn't mean Hitler was right to kill all the 'crippled'/mentally disabled & Jews, as well as the Poles and other minorities.

 

What positive insights of Hitler’s overall contribution are we missing because of demonizing him?  Is this a lost in translation thing??  Sure Hitler saved some guys life in WW1, loved animals, and maybe(but not really) hoisted Germany out of recession but OVERALL contribution? Medical advancements?   I’m honestly curious.  Maybe your point was lost in hyperbole.

 

But I agree.  We need to look at a person wholey to comprehend their actions and demonzing them doesn’t help with that.  It’s unscientific.  And I’m getting sick of public outrage... People suck, just animals trying to survive, riding the wave of nature and nurture.  We are all capable to terrible things and the outraged think they are incapable of these things

[Dazzle]

28 minutes ago, gttxc said:

What positive insights of Hitler’s overall contribution are we missing because of demonizing him?  Is this a lost in translation thing??  Sure Hitler saved some guys life in WW1, loved animals, and maybe(but not really) hoisted Germany out of recession but OVERALL contribution? Medical advancements?   I’m honestly curious.  Maybe your point was lost in hyperbole.

 

But I agree.  We need to look at a person wholey to comprehend their actions and demonzing them doesn’t help with that.  It’s unscientific.  And I’m getting sick of public outrage... People suck, just animals trying to survive, riding the wave of nature and nurture.  We are all capable to terrible things and the outraged think they are incapable of these things

I wasn't being hyperbolic. The point I was trying to make is that there's more to understand someone than just the bad stuff. Nothing more, nothing less. Based on what you wrote on the second paragraph, I think you're thinking along the same lines.

 

[smokes]

My question now is who's next? Team Captains?

[Monty]

17 minutes ago, smokes said:

My question now is who's next? Team Captains?

What the NHL is going to have to do is get rid of 95% of their players and start from scratch, because they’ve all said something before. On and off the ice.