Avery comments & suspension

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

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.

I dunno Harold, he was losing his s*** on the sidelines last week. I watched him laying in to/complaining, throwing his arms up at who I think was the offensive coordinator. Also, it was maybe 3 weeks ago now that he made public statements about not getting him the ball enough and that being a big part of Dallas' problems.

Nothing in there that would make me cringe but still, Owens being Owens and I don't know many hockey players that would publicly ***** about what Owens ******* about. Which I guess would be the equivalent of complaining about ice time.

[OsGOD 3]

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?

if blackballed yes i do... if it wasn't for betty making this way more of a deal than it really was... there wouldn't be so much talk going on... especially around the team that signs him to play again.

now if he is blueballed i blame Elisha Hey betty explain to the kiddies what that means!

Edited December 11, 2008 by OsGOD

[Dominator2005 558]

This isn't big deal at all... I think that they should let him play that game vs. Calgary and let Phaneuf or Iginla take charge of Avery. That would be the best ''punishment''...

[OsGOD 3]

^^ totally agree

[Guest Shoreline]

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.

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.

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?

So let's bring it up again, how many people have gone to the media to talk s*** about another player's girlfriend? You like to talk about precedent, and you're conveniently blowing it off. To you maybe Avery doing this is just the same as criticizing the refs, however, some of us can use that brain in our heads and figure out that it isn't the same whatsoever. Sean Avery has a habit of pushing boundaries, and when you do that, and set a new precedent, as evidenced twice now in Avery's career of setting a new bar, one has to react differently. The assertion of fining Avery is a slap on the wrist and thankfully the NHL doesn't declare this sort of selfish mockery of the sport akin to ******* criticizing a referee, as it wouldn't change a goddamn thing. Evidently you have no grasp of acceptable things to say in a working environment. Either that or you don't even know what "sloppy seconds" means. I can give you the definition if you like. The great thing about people who interpret things is they don't focus on the word itself (especially those who actually advocate for freedom of speech), they focus on the intent of the word, and let the intent define it. Guess that passed right over your head too, just like pretty much everything else in your rants against Bettman.

[OsGOD 3]

I think its brilliant. The media has had it rough digging into all sorts of famous peoples lives to find stories hidden. I commend Avery for making their lives easier and breaking the shocking news first.

[lets go pavel 2]

The assertion of fining Avery is a slap on the wrist and thankfully the NHL doesn't declare this sort of selfish mockery of the sport akin to ******* criticizing a referee, as it wouldn't change a goddamn thing.

Once again, I ask ... how are Avery's comments "bad for the game"? How do they make "a mockery of the sport"? Apart from you saying this, exactly what consequences did you expect would arise had the NHL not suspended him? I understand why they are objectionable, offensive, etc ... but what harm is that to the game of hockey???

[OsGOD 3]

Once again, I ask ... how are Avery's comments "bad for the game"? How do they make "a mockery of the sport"? Apart from you saying this, exactly what consequences did you expect would arise had the NHL not suspended him? I understand why they are objectionable, offensive, etc ... but what harm is that to the game of hockey???

Well when in the playoffs you have a coach PULL a goalie to bring in the back up... two mins later the backup trys to two hand slice a star forward in half... Get kicked out and then original goalie comes back in... Goalie gets 5 games.... Saying "sloppy seconds" gets you 6 games

THATS HOW... any questions?

[lets go pavel 2]

Well when in the playoffs you have a coach PULL a goalie to bring in the back up... two mins later the backup trys to two hand slice a star forward in half... Get kicked out and then original goalie comes back in... Goalie gets 5 games.... Saying "sloppy seconds" gets you 6 games

THATS HOW... any questions?

I see now ... then again, how could Bettman suspend a guy named Noodles for more than 5 games? Noodles. That's so cute, I'm sure he didn't mean to do it. Suspending him longer would send the wrong kind of message, that the NHL is anti-cute nicknames, and we wouldn't want that ...

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I dunno Harold, he was losing his s*** on the sidelines last week. I watched him laying in to/complaining, throwing his arms up at who I think was the offensive coordinator. Also, it was maybe 3 weeks ago now that he made public statements about not getting him the ball enough and that being a big part of Dallas' problems.

Nothing in there that would make me cringe but still, Owens being Owens and I don't know many hockey players that would publicly ***** about what Owens ******* about. Which I guess would be the equivalent of complaining about ice time.

Don't get me wrong, relatively speaking I still think TO is high maintenance. But he's gotten a lot better and become more of a teamplayer than the total *sshole he used to be. Whereas it sounds like Avery is pretty much a disruption to every lockeroom he's been in, and doesn't have near the talent Owens does to make teams want to put up with him.

EDIT: Just when I say TO has improved, the drama continues.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfceast/0-6-98/...et-meeting.html

Edited December 12, 2008 by haroldsnepsts

[Guest Shoreline]

Once again, I ask ... how are Avery's comments "bad for the game"? How do they make "a mockery of the sport"? Apart from you saying this, exactly what consequences did you expect would arise had the NHL not suspended him? I understand why they are objectionable, offensive, etc ... but what harm is that to the game of hockey???

Is part of the sport going to the media and s*** talking another player's girlfriend? Does it have anything even to do with hockey? Is the NHL not a professional hockey league? Do sports league and organizations not normally conduct themselves to the public (through the media) in a professional manner? There's long been a precedent for player conduct to the media. The only thing a few here overlook is there's a such thing as degrees of an offense, and sometimes a person sets the bar higher. Obviously you don't deal with new problems and degrees of problems with the same old solutions that ignore these degrees.

These sort of actions are perfectly understandable from entertainment businesses, like wrestling, because this is how they've always promoted themselves. This is not how the NHL has promoted itself. Why would it start to now? This s*** has nothing to do with hockey, so why would anyone even imply it's good for the game of hockey in the NHL? Because it would bring people who want to see s*** talking? Turn it to the WWE. Just because it brings people to watch doesn't mean it's inherently good for hockey. When the Bert incident occurred, they came down on him very hard, because the NHL is not the UFC and it's not Bloodsport. Not every single punishment will be equal, and if you look across every league, players always complain about how x player got a worse punishment than y player, or why x team got more penalties than y team.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Shoreline

[lets go pavel 2]

Is part of the sport going to the media and s*** talking another player's girlfriend? Does it have anything even to do with hockey? Is the NHL not a professional hockey league? Do sports league and organizations not normally conduct themselves to the public (through the media) in a professional manner? There's long been a precedent for player conduct to the media. The only thing a few here overlook is there's a such thing as degrees of an offense, and sometimes a person sets the bar higher. Obviously you don't deal with new problems and degrees of problems with the same old solutions that ignore these degrees.

These sort of actions are perfectly understandable from entertainment businesses, like wrestling, because this is how they've always promoted themselves. This is not how the NHL has promoted itself. Why would it start to now? This s*** has nothing to do with hockey, so why would anyone even imply it's good for the game of hockey in the NHL? Because it would bring people who want to see s*** talking? Turn it to the WWE. Just because it brings people to watch doesn't mean it's inherently good for hockey. When the Bert incident occurred, they came down on him very hard, because the NHL is not the UFC and it's not Bloodsport. Not every single punishment will be equal, and if you look across every league, players always complain about how x player got a worse punishment than y player, or why x team got more penalties than y team.

Nothing you said answered the question. I understand his comments had nothing to do with hockey. I don't disgree that they were unprofessional. I'm not arguing that it was good for the game. But how are his comments BAD FOR THE GAME? You keep saying that they were "bad for the game". What negative consequences have been avoided by this suspension? I don't care about entertainment, wrestling, the UFC ... tell me specifically what negative impact Sean Avery's comments would have had on THE GAME OF HOCKEY had he not been suspended for 6 games.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Don't get me wrong, relatively speaking I still think TO is high maintenance. But he's gotten a lot better and become more of a teamplayer than the total *sshole he used to be. Whereas it sounds like Avery is pretty much a disruption to every lockeroom he's been in, and doesn't have near the talent Owens does to make teams want to put up with him.

EDIT: Just when I say TO has improved, the drama continues.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfceast/0-6-98/...et-meeting.html

Harold, was he a problem in New York? I know when he was in LA he had the beef with Ian Laperierre b/c he made the comment about French Canadians. But I don't recall the Kings having a problem with Avery nor the Rags. But my memory ain't always the greatest. I thought the Rags loved him in their lineup. ???

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

So let's bring it up again, how many people have gone to the media to talk s*** about another player's girlfriend? You like to talk about precedent, and you're conveniently blowing it off. To you maybe Avery doing this is just the same as criticizing the refs, however, some of us can use that brain in our heads and figure out that it isn't the same whatsoever. Sean Avery has a habit of pushing boundaries, and when you do that, and set a new precedent, as evidenced twice now in Avery's career of setting a new bar, one has to react differently. The assertion of fining Avery is a slap on the wrist and thankfully the NHL doesn't declare this sort of selfish mockery of the sport akin to ******* criticizing a referee, as it wouldn't change a goddamn thing. Evidently you have no grasp of acceptable things to say in a working environment. Either that or you don't even know what "sloppy seconds" means. I can give you the definition if you like. The great thing about people who interpret things is they don't focus on the word itself (especially those who actually advocate for freedom of speech), they focus on the intent of the word, and let the intent define it. Guess that passed right over your head too, just like pretty much everything else in your rants against Bettman.

You are correct, finally, about something. To me, it's not a big deal. Didn't TO insinuate the Jeff Garcia was a "***"? I've heard worse things said to the media by players.

It's only your opinion that it "isn't the same whatsoever". Just like my opinion that it's no big deal.

Yes, b/c I have no problem with what Avery said b/c I view it as simple trash talking, that must mean I have no idea what is acceptable to say in the workplace?

I love how you assume your ******* interpretation is the correct one. I never new that interpretation was not subjective. Wow and I thought I was an overbearing, arrogant prick. You take the cake though. And furthermore, what am I not interpreting here? Because I disagree that sloppy seconds is a big deal I must not be able to interpret it's meaning? I know what sloppy seconds is. Like that time I tag teamed your mom with your old man. Your old man got the sloppy seconds that night. See, I used it in a sentence and you can clearly see I understand it's meaning.

Again, where are these "rants against Bettman". It's bad enough i'm working you over like a 5 dolla Thai hooker. Now you're mixing me up with somebody who's been ranting about Bettman? Please show me my Bettman "rants". I've made only cursory statements to the effect that Bettman shouldn't have suspended him. Where I have a waxed on about Bettman exactly?

[Guest Shoreline]

Nothing you said answered the question. I understand his comments had nothing to do with hockey. I don't disgree that they were unprofessional. I'm not arguing that it was good for the game. But how are his comments BAD FOR THE GAME? You keep saying that they were "bad for the game". What negative consequences have been avoided by this suspension? I don't care about entertainment, wrestling, the UFC ... tell me specifically what negative impact Sean Avery's comments would have had on THE GAME OF HOCKEY had he not been suspended for 6 games.

Obviously I'm criticizing the attention it gets, which is not only bad for the league, but as I HAVE asserted about 50 times in this topic alone (probably a hint it's run it's course), even moreso it badly reflected on his team and forced his team to answer to the media for it. You're working on the obvious premise that no attention is bad attention, and just as obviously overlooking everything else.

You are correct, finally, about something. To me, it's not a big deal. Didn't TO insinuate the Jeff Garcia was a "***"? I've heard worse things said to the media by players.

It's only your opinion that it "isn't the same whatsoever". Just like my opinion that it's no big deal.

Yes, b/c I have no problem with what Avery said b/c I view it as simple trash talking, that must mean I have no idea what is acceptable to say in the workplace?

I love how you assume your ******* interpretation is the correct one. I never new that interpretation was not subjective. Wow and I thought I was an overbearing, arrogant prick. You take the cake though. And furthermore, what am I not interpreting here? Because I disagree that sloppy seconds is a big deal I must not be able to interpret it's meaning? I know what sloppy seconds is. Like that time I tag teamed your mom with your old man. Your old man got the sloppy seconds that night. See, I used it in a sentence and you can clearly see I understand it's meaning.

Again, where are these "rants against Bettman". It's bad enough i'm working you over like a 5 dolla Thai hooker. Now you're mixing me up with somebody who's been ranting about Bettman? Please show me my Bettman "rants". I've made only cursory statements to the effect that Bettman shouldn't have suspended him. Where I have a waxed on about Bettman exactly?

Yep. You're working me over so bad all you have left are childish insults. You know when your argument's gone to s*** when that's all you have left. Time to take the high road here and let you cool off before you blow a fuse over an internet debate.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Shoreline

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

it ain't worth the trouble....

Edited December 12, 2008 by HOCKEY MATTERS

[raidedredwing2 0]

I think this is being blown up for a stupid reason. Players say very harsh things to each other out on the ice and this is never an issue. I still think the kid is a good player. Led the NHL in +/- last year. When Avery played for the wings it sometime gave that spark we needed. Lets face it. Dallas is a terrible team right now and if his teammates dont want to play with him, solely based on the fact that he made a personal comment that involved his ex and another NHL player? Isnt that the risk of dating someone famous and all the backstabbing bulls*** that is involved in a relations***. Dallas players are more concerned with the fact that they want avery off the team then they are concerned about what they need to do to win some hockey games. Thats a pure joke, considering the fact that Modano and Turco are the ones complaining the most about him. I look to see Dallas seeing stars tommarow after the Wings wipe them off the ice.

[shadow47 1]

Hockey players are the worst interviews in sports, boring mundane canned answers from boring mundane conservative people. It's amazing how long I've ignored this fact. The league pretends to want to market the players but they just want to put on a front. It's sad. Praise Avery for injecting some reality into a sport that is being smothered in fantasy and facade. Suck my sloppy seconds, NHL.

[lets go pavel 2]

Obviously I'm criticizing the attention it gets, which is not only bad for the league, but as I HAVE asserted about 50 times in this topic alone (probably a hint it's run it's course), even moreso it badly reflected on his team and forced his team to answer to the media for it. You're working on the obvious premise that no attention is bad attention, and just as obviously overlooking everything else.

Again, all you keep saying it is bad for the league, but you fail to say HOW. HOW is the attention bad for the league? HOW HOW HOW? What harm is it doing? What are the negative consequences?

And no, that's not the premise I'm working from. I think there is good attention and bad attention. I don't think this incident makes a bit of difference to the game of hockey. I don't think this particular bit of attention was good or bad for the game, I don't think this incident had anything to do with the game. I think it's bad for Sean Avery.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Obviously I'm criticizing the attention it gets, which is not only bad for the league, but as I HAVE asserted about 50 times in this topic alone (probably a hint it's run it's course), even moreso it badly reflected on his team and forced his team to answer to the media for it. You're working on the obvious premise that no attention is bad attention, and just as obviously overlooking everything else.

Yep. You're working me over so bad all you have left are childish insults. You know when your argument's gone to s*** when that's all you have left. Time to take the high road here and let you cool off before you blow a fuse over an internet debate.

This response is more canned than your typical NHLer giving a post game interview.

Whatever braniac, doesn't change a thing. Doesn't change the fact that you got pwned. Nice try with your little "interpretation" speech. Unless of course you are trying to tell the entire forum that your interpretation is always the correct one. Then by all means continue ejumacating the rest of us hillbillies.

[hillbillywingsfan 794]

This response is more canned than your typical NHLer giving a post game interview.

Whatever braniac, doesn't change a thing. Doesn't change the fact that you got pwned. Nice try with your little "interpretation" speech. Unless of course you are trying to tell the entire forum that your interpretation is always the correct one. Then by all means continue ejumacating the rest of us hillbillies.

i take oh-fence to dat dar commaments

he's 1 of 2 on this whole forum that agrees with the 6 game suspension. so what does that tell you? enough said.

oh noz..we play dallas tonight...i hope they don't interview avrey..if he were to say something about lids we are doomed.

Edited December 12, 2008 by hillbillywingsfan

[Guest Shoreline]

This response is more canned than your typical NHLer giving a post game interview.

Whatever braniac, doesn't change a thing. Doesn't change the fact that you got pwned. Nice try with your little "interpretation" speech. Unless of course you are trying to tell the entire forum that your interpretation is always the correct one. Then by all means continue ejumacating the rest of us hillbillies.

Did the NHL agree? Hey, looks like it did, and my interpretation was the correct one. How's that for pwned?

But make no mistake I would never, ever, waste my time trying to "edjumacate" a hillbilly. As you can see from the last post, you're staring at utter futility.

[drwscc 212]

If the NHL had never addressed his comments, this would have been a non-story. I think the pundits would have talked about it for a couple of minutes in their "Avery being Avery" segments, he would have been pounded by Phaneuf and Iginla in the game, and that would have been the end of it.

No 40 page thread. No Stars throwing him under the bus. Over and done.

His teammates would have had to field a couple of questions about them, answer with a no comment, or I dunno, didn't see it, and it would have been over. They wouldn't have been able to use him as "an escape goat" (any OandA fans should get that one)

There was nothing inherently *bad for the game* in the comments. Sure, they don't have anything to do with hockey, and sure it was not the best thing to say, but it was funny, and it was Avery being Avery.

[lets go pavel 2]

But make no mistake I would never, ever, waste my time trying to "edjumacate" a hillbilly. As you can see from the last post, you're staring at utter futility.

Apparently you're not going to waste your time actually answering anyone's questions either. You're right ... we're all staring at utter futility.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Harold, was he a problem in New York? I know when he was in LA he had the beef with Ian Laperierre b/c he made the comment about French Canadians. But I don't recall the Kings having a problem with Avery nor the Rags. But my memory ain't always the greatest. I thought the Rags loved him in their lineup. ???

I had posted an article earlier about how during his time with the Kings Avery ripped on Dustin Brown mercilessly, among other people, until it led to fist fights in the lockerroom. After the year of the French Canadian incident, allegedly calling Laraque a monkey, and getting into a profanity-filled tirade with a Ducks announcer, the GM said he was on "double secret probation." He was suspended by the team near the end of his stay there.

As for the Rangers, I'm not really sure. I didn't follow him that closely there, but it seemed relatively quiet, minus the stick waving thing and having his name show up in a hooker's phonebook. They didn't re-sign him though, in spite of him playing well for the Rags.

It sounds like from early on in Dallas he was not really a part of the team. That's not all on him, but I'm guessing a lot of it is that the team is struggling and Avery seems more interested in his attention than winning hockey games.