Avery comments & suspension

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Anyone else think that his attempt at a "locker-room apology" was sincere or just a way to avoid trouble?

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

No idea how many times this point has been raised in this topic alone (several by me), but yet again it always comes back to the Evil Bettman banishing the saintly Avery from the NHL for life for his kind and warm-spirited compliment of Phaneuf's lovely girlfriend.

(I'm sure esteef will certainly agree with the latter part here)

Nice attempt at a spin job there shoreline. You know damned well that from the moment it was brought up, by me, it was posed as a hypothetical situation. And frankly, it's seeming rather plausible at the moment.

Noboby ever said it was etched in stone that he was banished from the league. I merely asked that "IF" in fact this lead to him being out of work in the NHL, do we find that to be justifiable when weighed against some of the actions of players past.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

In the sense that he causes teammates unnecessary concern on things they shouldn't be concerned about. Someone who's a distraction to his team is going to find himself not getting any sympathy when things like this occur.

Didn't Brendan Shanahan have an affair with Craig Janney's wife? Or was it Marty Lapointe who had an affair? All I know is that Janney's old lady left his ass and married Shanny. Wow, would've loved to be in that locker room. Probably no distraction in there.

One guy is going to the hall of fame, and is one of my all-time favorite players, and he bagged his linemate's old lady. Ouch.

My point is that locker rooms are not ******* tree-hugging, pot-smoking Woodstock love fests. You show me any sports locker room and I'll show you that there's somebody in that room who ain't quite gettin' along with somebody else in that room.

This situation is still overblown.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

As I've explained, this is not just about one isolated incident. Avery is a special case; he has a history of pushing buttons, and he's in a high-risk position, what with all the exposure he gets for himself and for the league. Pronger does not get that kind of exposure; no non-NHL fans know or care when Pronger elbows somebody in the face.

As I've explained, Bettman wants Avery to do what he does -- as long as he does it without going overboard. Unfortunately, it seems like the only way to get through to Avery is to really shake him up. The hope, I'm sure, is that this will do just that. Moreover, Bettman has to protect and project at least some semblance of class for the league, as that has, I think, always been one of its finer selling points. Slamming Avery with this suspension sends a message not only to Avery, not only to people within the league, but also to "outsiders" looking in. The message is that there's no place for this kind of garbage (and it is garbage) in the NHL, unless it's said on the ice. You see that as bumbling idiocy and borderline paranoia, but it's not, and if we're talking about non-NHL fans who are hearing about this, they are probably generally in agreement with this idea. Overall, the only people who are going to see this suspension as horribly misguided and wrong are those who have a bone to pick with Bettman in the first place. I hate the guy and I'd love to see him him resign, but I'm not going to let that cloud my judgment in this case -- and neither should you.

I've not seen anything from Bettman to that effect. Do you have a link?

Regarding your general agreement comment. Here, you are limited by your perspective. You go to any sports bar where there's a bunch of dudes watching an NFL game and swilling beers and see if they give a rat's ass that there's no place in hockey for what Avery said. I'll bet you whatever the hell you wanna bet that those guys would be MORE inclined to watch a hockey game given that backstory and had Avery gotten to play.

I don't know who these non hockey fans are that you are championing. The non hockey fans i'm talking about are sports fans. And the sports fans I know and hang out with don't mind some testiness and might actually watch a hockey game if there was something other than the game itself to draw in their attention.

These non hockey fans that you think Bettman is sending a message too, please explain to me why those folks are going to become hockey fans now and tune in. Explain to me why we should give a f*** that they think the league did the right thing.

Like i've said a hundred times already. Somebody please find me one person who has now become a hockey fan because the league sent Avery a message. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Edited December 11, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[OsGOD 3]

Nice attempt at a spin job there shoreline. You know damned well that from the moment it was brought up, by me, it was posed as a hypothetical situation. And frankly, it's seeming rather plausible at the moment.

Noboby ever said it was etched in stone that he was banished from the league. I merely asked that "IF" in fact this lead to him being out of work in the NHL, do we find that to be justifiable when weighed against some of the actions of players past.

I do agree... "if" nobody is defending him off camera there is a very good chance he will be blackballed from the nhl for this silly whatever they heck you would call it he said.

I've not seen anything from Bettman to that effect. Do you have a link?

Regarding your general agreement comment. Here, you are limited by your perspective. You go to any sports bar where there's a bunch of dudes watching an NFL game and swilling beers and see if they give a rat's ass that there's no place in hockey for what Avery said. I'll bet you whatever the hell you wanna bet that those guys would be MORE inclined to watch a hockey game given that backstory and had Avery gotten to play.

I don't know who these non hockey fans are that you are championing. The non hockey fans i'm talking about are sports fans. And the sports fans I know and hang out with don't mind some testiness and might actually watch a hockey game if there was something other than the game itself to draw in their attention.

These non hockey fans that you think Bettman is sending a message too, please explain to me why those folks are going to become hockey fans now and tune in. Explain to me why we should give a f*** that they think the league did the right thing.

Like i've said a hundred times already. Somebody please find me one person who has now become a hockey fan because the league sent Avery a message. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Well of course its all because we are all humans at our core and we thrive on true love... you have to love a heart felt story of crime and punishment...

Fans...are...should be... flocking to the NHL because thats all the world needs is more love and less of the sloppy seconds talk.

Maybe its because he was outed as a fashion guru and betty can't handle that!

Edited December 11, 2008 by OsGOD

[drwscc 212]

"Man, I heard some Steve Avery dude make some comments about this big defenseman for the team he's playing against tonight. I bet he's gonna get the sh*t kicked out of him. Think I might tune in for that."

or

"Man, the NHL did a great job in suspending that Steve Avery guy for making derogatory comments. That kind of thing has no place in sports. I think I will become a fan of that league, since NBA, NFL, and MLB have so many problems."

Really. Which of these statements is more likely? Which sounds more like a non-fan who might actually watch a game?

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

If Dallas wants to over-react then they'll follow the heavy-handed route Bettman "the league" handed out by suspending him further.

From what I've heard/read from many non-hockey fans is that this whole ordeal has been way overblown; a hefty fine would've been sufficient.

True 'dat!

[Zetterling 16]

All this for saying Phaneuf has his sloppy seconds? Most people don't even know what that means. Chastise him for being inappropriate but good god man. Shunned from the Stars? Anger management? Fire Brett Hull? 6 game suspension? Lets reinstate prohibition while we are at it..

Don Cherry says worse things about the Red Wings during playoff season XD.

[esteef 2,679]

You see that as bumbling idiocy and borderline paranoia, but it's not, and if we're talking about non-NHL fans who are hearing about this, they are probably generally in agreement with this idea. Overall, the only people who are going to see this suspension as horribly misguided and wrong are those who have a bone to pick with Bettman in the first place. I hate the guy and I'd love to see him him resign, but I'm not going to let that cloud my judgment in this case -- and neither should you.

Assumption and not true. I've got no fixation with Bettman, and in fact, have never ragged on him before this incident. I understand he's trying to do what he thinks is right for the sport, he's just not very good at it. Just sayin'...

esteef

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Assumption and not true. I've got no fixation with Bettman, and in fact, have never ragged on him before this incident. I understand he's trying to do what he thinks is right for the sport, he's just not very good at it. Just sayin'...

esteef

well esteef, shoreline's whole position basically is that he thinks what Avery did is bad for the game and that what Bettman did is good for the game.

His reasoning seems to be that Bettman sent a loud and clear message to people who don't care about hockey that this type of obscenity won't be tolerated.

I'm glad Bettman cares so much about sending the right message to people who aren't hockey fans and aren't likely to become hockey fans.

[esteef 2,679]

If Dallas wants to over-react then they'll follow the heavy-handed route Bettman "the league" handed out by suspending him further.

From what I've heard/read from many non-hockey fans is that this whole ordeal has been way overblown; a hefty fine would've been sufficient.

My thoughts exactly at first, but someone mentioned (I forgot how many pages ago) that the maximum fine a player can receive is $2,500. In that case, I agree with a suspension only to get the bigger dollar figure for the fine. Ideally they should be able to fine players whatever amount they want, but that's another battle altogether. I would certainly keep the suspension on par with other incidents the league has faced and actually doled out suspensions for though. 6 for Avery was too high in my opinion.

esteef

Edited December 11, 2008 by esteef

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

My thoughts exactly at first, but someone mentioned (I forgot how many pages ago) that the maximum fine a player can receive is $2,500. In that case, I agree with a suspension only to get the bigger dollar figure for the fine. Ideally they should be able to fine players whatever amount they want, but that's another battle altogether. I would certainly keep the suspension on par with other incidents the league has faced and actually doled out suspensions for though. 6 for Avery was too high in my opinion.

esteef

Well, a scary precedent has now been sent. Those who support the suspension say that it was likely a culmination of Avery's antics. Maybe.

But, Avery to this point had never been suspended and was indeed suspended for the comments he made.

So this establishes a murky precedent in my mind.

What constitutes obscene for the NHL? Who will determine that. A 6 game precedent has now been set and this for a player NEVER BEFORE SUSPENDED by the league, for anything.

So what happens if a player threatens harm on another player? What if a player makes derogatory comments, publicly, off the ice, about the commissionar being a dolt? or that the referees or "xyz" referee is horrible and should be booted from the league? What if said player also has a history or has been previously suspended by the league for something.

IMO, the league is taking a real chance at creating a problem for itself down the road with consistently policing what players say. It's such an ambiguous, grey area. And the league already has shown its complete and utter lack of consistency when it comes to suspensions for on ice play. I foresee now they'll just add to that a complete inability to be consistent with suspensions for off ice issues as well. Of course I don't think it'll be a problem b/c most NHLers are robots, devoid of personality and/or unwilling to simply rip into anybody or anything publicly b/c....well, they're hockey players and they really don't do that kind of thing.

PS: If you read McKenzie daily, and he's somebody who is in the know, even he says its unlikely any NHL or even minor league team would take Avery right now or in the foreseeable future.

Avery blackballed or banned from the league? Looking more likely with each passing day.

[lets go pavel 2]

Can someone explain how what Avery did is actually "bad for the game"? I understand why it was a crude comment, but why is it "bad for the game"?

What exactly are the supposed ramifications of this incident that necessitated such a severe penalty? Was viewership going to drop? Were current fans going to stop watching hockey? Were people who weren't fans going to be even lesser fans? Would this somehow change the game on the ice? What is the danger here that we avoided by suspending Avery?

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

Can someone explain how what Avery did is actually "bad for the game"? I understand why it was a crude comment, but why is it "bad for the game"?

What exactly are the supposed ramifications of this incident that necessitated such a severe penalty? Was viewership going to drop? Were current fans going to stop watching hockey? Were people who weren't fans going to be even lesser fans? Would this somehow change the game on the ice? What is the danger here that we avoided by suspending Avery?

Because Cuthbert won't be blogging anymore on NHL.com

Come on dude, haven't you been paying attention to the other side's wonderful arguments so far?

[Opie 308]

Because Cuthbert won't be blogging anymore on NHL.com

Come on dude, haven't you been paying attention to the other side's wonderful arguments so far?

:rotflmao:

It is so funny because it is true!!!!!

[hillbillywingsfan 794]

Can someone explain how what Avery did is actually "bad for the game"? I understand why it was a crude comment, but why is it "bad for the game"?

What exactly are the supposed ramifications of this incident that necessitated such a severe penalty? Was viewership going to drop? Were current fans going to stop watching hockey? Were people who weren't fans going to be even lesser fans? Would this somehow change the game on the ice? What is the danger here that we avoided by suspending Avery?

well becuase it hurt dion phaneuf's peelings so bad him have to go get consuling now. haven't you read the other sides arguements? hahahahahahahahahaha

[Guest Shoreline]

Nice attempt at a spin job there shoreline. You know damned well that from the moment it was brought up, by me, it was posed as a hypothetical situation. And frankly, it's seeming rather plausible at the moment.

Noboby ever said it was etched in stone that he was banished from the league. I merely asked that "IF" in fact this lead to him being out of work in the NHL, do we find that to be justifiable when weighed against some of the actions of players past.

Given your re-assertions and continuing to bring it up, I doubt it was merely just a hypothetical situation.

Anyways, it went well over your head that my post was just mocking esteef's straw man arguments.

Didn't Brendan Shanahan have an affair with Craig Janney's wife? Or was it Marty Lapointe who had an affair? All I know is that Janney's old lady left his ass and married Shanny. Wow, would've loved to be in that locker room. Probably no distraction in there.

One guy is going to the hall of fame, and is one of my all-time favorite players, and he bagged his linemate's old lady. Ouch.

My point is that locker rooms are not ******* tree-hugging, pot-smoking Woodstock love fests. You show me any sports locker room and I'll show you that there's somebody in that room who ain't quite gettin' along with somebody else in that room.

This situation is still overblown.

Hey that's great. But which one of them went to the media and made this a big deal? You know, just to at least stay semi-relevant to the issue at hand. I'm sure the NHL isn't full of people ******* each other's wives/girlfriends/boyfriends and going off to the media about it either. If it IS, and Avery's actions were just part of the status quo, by all means show it.

If Dallas wants to over-react then they'll follow the heavy-handed route Bettman "the league" handed out by suspending him further.

From what I've heard/read from many non-hockey fans is that this whole ordeal has been way overblown; a hefty fine would've been sufficient.

Which league would they be fans of? The one which added rules to stop people from celebrating excessively in the endzone? Or the one that tells people how to dress? Yeah, I'd prefer hockey and this league where people can s*** talk mostly all they want on the ice, yet the league expects professionalism and sportsmanship off of it.

Well, a scary precedent has now been sent. Those who support the suspension say that it was likely a culmination of Avery's antics. Maybe.

So with this scary "precedent" that was set, maybe you can inform me of the "precedent" of players going to the media and making such comments regarding another player's girlfriend with such sexual overtones. Because it looks pretty logical to me that when a player sets a different precedent, one that may have been overlooked by the league (much like the "Avery rule"), it requires the league to act in kind. If this makes no sense to you, dare I ask how the league would handle ANYTHING that normally doesn't happen.

But, Avery to this point had never been suspended and was indeed suspended for the comments he made.

So this establishes a murky precedent in my mind.

What constitutes obscene for the NHL? Who will determine that. A 6 game precedent has now been set and this for a player NEVER BEFORE SUSPENDED by the league, for anything.

So what happens if a player threatens harm on another player? What if a player makes derogatory comments, publicly, off the ice, about the commissionar being a dolt? or that the referees or "xyz" referee is horrible and should be booted from the league? What if said player also has a history or has been previously suspended by the league for something.

IMO, the league is taking a real chance at creating a problem for itself down the road with consistently policing what players say. It's such an ambiguous, grey area. And the league already has shown its complete and utter lack of consistency when it comes to suspensions for on ice play. I foresee now they'll just add to that a complete inability to be consistent with suspensions for off ice issues as well. Of course I don't think it'll be a problem b/c most NHLers are robots, devoid of personality and/or unwilling to simply rip into anybody or anything publicly b/c....well, they're hockey players and they really don't do that kind of thing.

PS: If you read McKenzie daily, and he's somebody who is in the know, even he says its unlikely any NHL or even minor league team would take Avery right now or in the foreseeable future.

Avery blackballed or banned from the league? Looking more likely with each passing day.

Hah. And people were saying those who agreed with Avery's suspension were the ones being overreacting? Hell, hand them your post. THE NHL IS NEVA GONNA BE THE SAME AGAIN. Hell, Avery hasn't even finished his suspension and you've been suggesting for says now he could, would, will, be "banned" or "blackballed" from the league. Let that be up to each team. If they decide he isn't what they want, so ******* what? The NHL cannot tell a team they cannot sign/trade for a player who isn't suspended. The consistent thing you're trying to do here is act like the choice of these teams has been eliminated and it never has been. You can quit with the hockey doomsday charade now.

And in terms of what can be said and what will be tolerated, how many leagues fine players just for criticizing refs or officials?

You want precedent? How about fines levied for coaches or players unrulingly criticizing officials to the media?

Just because someone finally gets suspended after setting his own precedent, doesn't mean the NHL has never regulated player conduct to the media, particularly in press conferences and locker room interviews. I don't expect, in your Bettman rants, you'd consider this though, nor do I think you'd even consider it now. Taking a step back and looking at this with some perspective doesn't look to favor the argument you're bringing here.

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

Because Cuthbert won't be blogging anymore on NHL.com

Come on dude, haven't you been paying attention to the other side's wonderful arguments so far?

"So I was like sitting by the pool in LA the other day and Dion sent me a text mesasge saying that Sean called me 'sloppy seconds.' I was like, no way, and than I thought about it and was like, why would he say I am sloppy after I have seconds when I have butlers to clean up after me... LOL... Oh Sean, he's a goofy, but now I'm mad that he would say something that isn't true. So I'm going to take him off my friends list on Facebook and I'm not going to do a blog on NHL.com again... hehehe... LOL... I'm sneaky.... Go Kings!"

edit:..... spare me

Edited December 11, 2008 by ManLuv4Clears

[OsGOD 3]

Anyone else think that his attempt at a "locker-room apology" was sincere or just a way to avoid trouble?

are they ever sincere? i mean really...

I don't hold that against him one way or the other... people can fake tears or fake caring all the time to get what they want.

All this for saying Phaneuf has his sloppy seconds? Most people don't even know what that means. Chastise him for being inappropriate but good god man. Shunned from the Stars? Anger management? Fire Brett Hull? 6 game suspension? Lets reinstate prohibition while we are at it..

Don Cherry says worse things about the Red Wings during playoff season XD.

Well they do now thanks to betty and co.

I bet betty is a person that goes to movies like Madagascar and explains to all the kids what the "adult jokes" mean.

Well kids see when it said that i "take it up the tailpipe...." what that means is that I.......

Edited December 11, 2008 by OsGOD

[eva unit zero 271]

Well, a scary precedent has now been sent. Those who support the suspension say that it was likely a culmination of Avery's antics. Maybe.

But, Avery to this point had never been suspended and was indeed suspended for the comments he made.

So this establishes a murky precedent in my mind.

What constitutes obscene for the NHL? Who will determine that. A 6 game precedent has now been set and this for a player NEVER BEFORE SUSPENDED by the league, for anything.

So what happens if a player threatens harm on another player? What if a player makes derogatory comments, publicly, off the ice, about the commissionar being a dolt? or that the referees or "xyz" referee is horrible and should be booted from the league? What if said player also has a history or has been previously suspended by the league for something.

IMO, the league is taking a real chance at creating a problem for itself down the road with consistently policing what players say. It's such an ambiguous, grey area. And the league already has shown its complete and utter lack of consistency when it comes to suspensions for on ice play. I foresee now they'll just add to that a complete inability to be consistent with suspensions for off ice issues as well. Of course I don't think it'll be a problem b/c most NHLers are robots, devoid of personality and/or unwilling to simply rip into anybody or anything publicly b/c....well, they're hockey players and they really don't do that kind of thing.

PS: If you read McKenzie daily, and he's somebody who is in the know, even he says its unlikely any NHL or even minor league team would take Avery right now or in the foreseeable future.

Avery blackballed or banned from the league? Looking more likely with each passing day.

What you are ignoring, which SHOULDN'T be ignored, is that Avery took it upon himself to ENSURE that his comments would be caught on a national broadcast. It wasn't something that happened to be captured. It was planned.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Avery blackballed or banned from the league? Looking more likely with each passing day.

Avery has in no way been banned from the league. He's been suspended, will serve the suspension, and be eligible to play.

If he is "blackballed" in that no team wants him, do you really think that has anything to do with Bettman giving him a 6 game suspension?

[esteef 2,679]

Given your re-assertions and continuing to bring it up, I doubt it was merely just a hypothetical situation.

Anyways, it went well over your head that my post was just mocking esteef's straw man arguments.

You Mothermocker!

(+1 for the straw man reference btw)

esteef

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

name='Shoreline' post='1497819' date='December 11, 2008 - 01:36PM']Given your re-assertions and continuing to bring it up, I doubt it was merely just a hypothetical situation.

So I guess if you repeat a question, one that just happens to be a hypothetical, and continue to repeat it b/c a certain someone can't address it, then it somehow isn't really a hypothetical anymore.

Hey that's great. But which one of them went to the media and made this a big deal? You know, just to at least stay semi-relevant to the issue at hand. I'm sure the NHL isn't full of people ******* each other's wives/girlfriends/boyfriends and going off to the media about it either. If it IS, and Avery's actions were just part of the status quo, by all means show it.

Once again you show point grasping isn't your strong suit. I was referring to your comment about Avery and locker rooms in general Einstein. Going public or not is another point entirely. I'm merely pointing out that locker rooms are not the love fests you're asserting by constantly bringing up Avery and the Stars locker room dynamic. You don't have to say something publicly to have a locker room that has issues. Lots of locker rooms are f***ed up. Get a clue, grasp the point, try to keep up. Do the rest of us a favor and get yourself up to speed already.

Which league would they be fans of? The one which added rules to stop people from celebrating excessively in the endzone? Or the one that tells people how to dress? Yeah, I'd prefer hockey and this league where people can s*** talk mostly all they want on the ice, yet the league expects professionalism and sportsmanship off of it.

What you prefer the sport to be like versus the original argument of what would bring fans in, either letting him play or suspending him is just another glaring example of your inability to follow the loaves of bread people are dropping for you. If you're going to argue and be a ****** about it in the process, at least keep the issues straight.

So with this scary "precedent" that was set, maybe you can inform me of the "precedent" of players going to the media and making such comments regarding another player's girlfriend with such sexual overtones. Because it looks pretty logical to me that when a player sets a different precedent, one that may have been overlooked by the league (much like the "Avery rule"), it requires the league to act in kind. If this makes no sense to you, dare I ask how the league would handle ANYTHING that normally doesn't happen.

Once again you can't grasp simple concepts. I don't care what Avery said. The point is that the precedent has been set for SUSPENDING PEOPLE FOR WHAT THEY SAY! It's not what is said that is the heart of the matter, its that the league has finally suspended somebody for off ice commentary. It's arbitrary. It's ambiguous. And it does set a precedent. It wouldn't matter if instead of making a sexual remark, he made a racist remark or threatened physical harm or whatever. The POINT is that your words off the ice can now get you suspended. What is offensive to the league may be unknown to the players. Look at the rule sited for Avery's suspension. It's ambiguous at best and left up to the league's discretion.

You want precedent? How about fines levied for coaches or players unrulingly criticizing officials to the media?

There you go, you're catching on now. Yes, fines are an established form of punishment for off the field commentary. Why was that not employed in this instance? Why was the PRECEDENT of suspending an NHL player for off ice comments set here? Does it not open the door for more ambiguity? Is it not something new that the league has just done? Man, you're almost there. You're like almost to the top of the wall. Just throw your leg over and you'll have caught up mentally to what concepts are being discussed here.

Just because someone finally gets suspended after setting his own precedent, doesn't mean the NHL has never regulated player conduct to the media, particularly in press conferences and locker room interviews. I don't expect, in your Bettman rants, you'd consider this though, nor do I think you'd even consider it now. Taking a step back and looking at this with some perspective doesn't look to favor the argument you're bringing here.

First off, look up rant in the dictionary. Secondly, show me where i've made anything but single sentence comments about Bettman. Hell, I don't even know that i've mentioned his name in more than just a blurb. Yet, i've been "ranting" about Bettman. Sure, whatever dude.

And nobody is arguing that the league has never regulated player conduct to the media. It's just never regulated it by suspending somebody. Uhhhh, derrrrr.....big light bulb going off for you yet?

Edited December 11, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Avery has in no way been banned from the league. He's been suspended, will serve the suspension, and be eligible to play.

If he is "blackballed" in that no team wants him, do you really think that has anything to do with Bettman giving him a 6 game suspension?

Harold, you're using banned in a literal sense. Obviously he isn't serving a "ban" in the sense that the league has told him he's not allowed to play indefinitely.

And no, the amount of suspension has nothing to do with it. Avery has been Avery for years now. The point i'm making, the larger picture here is that IMO this thing has been blown out of proportion. Yes, Avery is at fault for his actions. However, the stigma that has been unleashed about this could have a very real impact on whether or not he'll find work again. I find that absurd, hypocritical and unjust in a league where guys have tried and succeeded in ending other players careers.

For example, let's say he was not suspended by the league. Let's say he played in the game, the Flames kicked his ass and the league handed him a nice fine for his potty mouth. If this had not been made into such a big deal would the Stars have lined up to do interviews throwing him under the bus? Would the Stars organization have ran to the front of the room to grab a microphone and condemn Avery's comments and bust out the holier than thou card?

I have extreme doubts that the Stars players and ownership would've taken such a morale high ground stance if the reaction to his comments, mainly the immediate, indefinite suspension had not occurred.

IMO, Avery's comments were blown out of proportion by Bettman/the league. Once that ball got rolling it was only in the Stars best interest to distance themselves from Avery as quickly as possible. And obviously the Stars players jumped at the opportunity to throw him under the bus. Maybe he was a s***ty teammate. But I didn't see Tippett putting him in the press box prior to this, did you? I didn't hear the stars players trashing him prior to this, did you?

Perhaps had he not been suspended this would've gone down in history as yet another one of the great, "oh no he din'nt" trash talking episodes in sport and not been the spectacle that it now is, with the potential ramifications it may now have for Avery in particular.

And obviously this entire argument boils down to 2 things.

1. The argument of whether or not suspending him or letting him play would've drawn more fans. Which I think the answer to that one is clear.

and

2. How we feel about it personally. Shoreline thinks we're stupid and can't tell. But obviously he's a Nancy and his delicate sensibilities were offended by Avery and he fancies himself some noble, chivalrous guy standing up for the honorable game of hockey, the beacon of light in a sports world gone in the s***ter. Or you're like me and think Avery's comments, whereas unecessary, were nothing more than some straight up trash talking to get under the skin of an opponent and is really not the big deal it was made out to be.

regarding #2, there's no right or wrong in how we feel. But I can go on thinking shoreline is a stiff and should lose the suspenders and not hike his pants up his ass crack so much for taking his position.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Harold, you're using banned in a literal sense. Obviously he isn't serving a "ban" in the sense that the league has told him he's not allowed to play indefinitely.

And no, the amount of suspension has nothing to do with it. Avery has been Avery for years now. The point i'm making, the larger picture here is that IMO this thing has been blown out of proportion. Yes, Avery is at fault for his actions. However, the stigma that has been unleashed about this could have a very real impact on whether or not he'll find work again. I find that absurd, hypocritical and unjust in a league where guys have tried and succeeded in ending other players careers.

For example, let's say he was not suspended by the league. Let's say he played in the game, the Flames kicked his ass and the league handed him a nice fine for his potty mouth. If this had not been made into such a big deal would the Stars have lined up to do interviews throwing him under the bus? Would the Stars organization have ran to the front of the room to grab a microphone and condemn Avery's comments and bust out the holier than thou card?

I have extreme doubts that the Stars players and ownership would've taken such a morale high ground stance if the reaction to his comments, mainly the immediate, indefinite suspension had not occurred.

IMO, Avery's comments were blown out of proportion by Bettman/the league. Once that ball got rolling it was only in the Stars best interest to distance themselves from Avery as quickly as possible. And obviously the Stars players jumped at the opportunity to throw him under the bus. Maybe he was a s***ty teammate. But I didn't see Tippett putting him in the press box prior to this, did you? I didn't hear the stars players trashing him prior to this, did you?

Perhaps had he not been suspended this would've gone down in history as yet another one of the great, "oh no he din'nt" trash talking episodes in sport and not been the spectacle that it now is, with the potential ramifications it may now have for Avery in particular.

And obviously this entire argument boils down to 2 things.

1. The argument of whether or not suspending him or letting him play would've drawn more fans. Which I think the answer to that one is clear.

and

2. How we feel about it personally. Shoreline thinks we're stupid and can't tell. But obviously he's a Nancy and his delicate sensibilities were offended by Avery and he fancies himself some noble, chivalrous guy standing up for the honorable game of hockey, the beacon of light in a sports world gone in the s***ter. Or you're like me and think Avery's comments, whereas unecessary, were nothing more than some straight up trash talking to get under the skin of an opponent and is really not the big deal it was made out to be.

regarding #2, there's no right or wrong in how we feel. But I can go on thinking shoreline is a stiff and should lose the suspenders and not hike his pants up his ass crack so much for taking his position.

Honestly, I think you're #1 answer isn't quite right. It's more about whether letting his comments go or suspend him are good or bad for hockey. There's a lot of things that may draw more fans but would be terrible for the game.

As for the second, I think it was blown way out of proportion. And the Stars players likely wouldn't have talked about it as much because they wouldn't have been questioned about it over and over.

Ultimately I think the league overreacted, but if Avery doesn't play in the NHL again (which honestly would be a surprise to me if he didn't), it's his own damn fault. Not Bettman's. He's like Terrel Owens, minus the level of talent that makes people want to put up with someone like TO. Though honestly these days comparing TO to Avery is an insult to Owens. Owen has become a much better team player than he was in the past, and toned down the antics.

Edited December 11, 2008 by haroldsnepsts