TrueBlue4ever

Jets definitely owed a power play in the third for that Ehlers breakaway missed call.

Not once, but twice, right? 😁

We are not going to see BC in the playoffs, and between Sask and Calgary I would much rather face Sask, so anything to give them a better chance to win the west semi a la home field advantage would help that. So go Sask.

KFC still can’t back check.

Kyran Moore on the limp.

Dinwiddie with inexcusably bad clock management in the last minute. Lucky it did not cost them the game.

When does Simoni Lawrence get a meaningful suspension? Dirty play every game.

Fine. People are rushing to judgment without knowing the full story. Don’t do that. And no need to justify my stance, it would be too wordy. Just accept it. Better?

I guess what I am trying to get at is that saying we need to “change the culture” can be difficult to define. FIFO is lauded as a great thing because it speaks to a team mentality where no one is selfish and they work together for a common goal. And because the team won it is seen as an example of how the winning culture of the organization has been built. But the flip side is seeing the Blackhawks not want to disrupt the winning culture of a Stanley Cup contender by having a player.coach incident infect the locker room and having an individual issue overtake the team as a whole. So when we talk about changing the culture at the grassroots, do we take the concept of the team out of it? Do we say each individual should be heard and every issue heard at an individual level rather than looking at the team concept? As an example, Evander Kane shows up late for team meetings and not dressed as per the team dress code. He has been given reprimands but has not been changed his anti-FIFO behaviour. As a message that this guy should step in line, a teammate chucks his clothes on the shower. A much more effective message probably because it is handled on a player level without the need for whistleblowing. But one that certainly shows him disrespect (as he had himself shown disrespect for the team). Should the player or players who initiated the shower prank be punished because it was disrespectful? And if he said it was motivated by racism, should all those players be immediately suspended or shown the door because of Kane’s complaint? Because that is what has been said in some quarters about the BwXh incident. That everyone in the May meeting should have immediately kicked Aldrich off the team, not weeks later. But that is with 11 years of passing time and hindsight. What was known that day is less than what is known now, but some want the actions to be judged on what we know now, not back then. So back to the culture thing. Hard to make a blanket “culture” change because the same thought behind building a team and working together can create a situation where bad things are not spoken about or are “handled internally”, but the original intent of the culture was not to create that type of problem. I wonder if the better approach is to put rules and safeguards in place rather than calling for a “culture” overhaul. Right now in Manitoba junior sports, every prospective coach working with minors requires a background sex abuse registry check, minimal coaching certification training, and take a respect in sport course. And still some will slip through the cracks I am sure. JustA not sure how “changing the culture” and creating a whistleblower approach to everything will work. Open to hearing thoughts, I am not advocating for any approach as right or wrong. Perhaps that should be altered to “he has never spoken about it to the media or the public”, since he has complied and fully cooperated with the private (now very public) investigation and shared what he knew and did not know, by all accounts.

So how does O’Shea’s #FIFO mantra fit within the “culture” of a team. Clearly not intended to extend to sexual assault, but the whole concept of “put the team ahead of yourself”, “don’t be an individual who causes problems, be a team guy and fall in line” creates a mood where players keep quiet and subscribe to the group mentality or get ostracized. Where hazing is shrugged off as “team bonding” or “making sure the rookie shows respect”. Lots of blurry lines can be found, and it’s a lot easier to pick apart the flaws with the benefit of hindsight.

The dogs were epic entertainment.

How could I have forgotten that one? I have posted it a couple of times, but here it is again for our viewing pleasure. Just Google “Fajardo goalpost gif” and look in the images, and you should find it easily enough any time you need it.

Saskatchewan was actually picked by the majority to finish 4th or 5th in the West, based on a weak offensive line. They were the consensus #4 team out of the West. Calgary was pegged as the #1 team by almost all of 3DN. Edmonton was the most overrated as the consensus #2, with the Bombers in third. In the East, Hamilton was the unanimous #1, Ottawa was almost a unanimous #4, and Montreal shaded just ahead of Toronto as consensus #2, although 5 of the 9 writers picked the Argos to finish ahead of the Als (a pair who thought the Argos would finish last drops their overall ranking below Montreal). So based on where things stand, Hamilton was overrated as far as to where they would finish, the rest of the East is panning out as predicted. In the West Calgary and especially Edmonton were overrated, Winnipeg and Saskatchewan were underrated, and BC is just above what was predicted. The silliest rationale I found was were media said the Bombers would suffer by bringing back the core and not making enough changes to compete with the other teams who made moves, while at the same time saying Hamilton would dominate for precisely the same reason that their core was kept intact. Lazy analysis.

Maybe these will help. Any other favourites out there?

If you uttered those words in Strawberries back in the day you would have been punched.

Only if one assumes that everything that is known now is exactly what was known at that meeting. And a lot of specific was not included in that original meeting. In the end, I am not surprised with this decision. The danger of “broad brush” the NHL wants to avoid is a matter of self-preservation too, because they dragged their heels on an investigation. And protects the NHLPA would could have done more than they did. And the rest of the Hawk organization (players, staff, media, and any others who heard anything). If the standard was “anyone who knew anything and did not act is complicit by their silence” then it would open up the whole league to being shut down on some level. So legally, the line has been drawn and Cheveldayoff is on the good side of that line. Morally is a whole different issue, and many have already cast their votes. Fans who are upset can still petition the club or speak with their wallets. I am certain the local media will have few opinion columns about this.

I agree that he is not low-rung, as evidenced by his presence at the meeting. Personally that carries weight with me, but I don’t get to make the final decision. You also assume that he knew the exact details of what happened to Beach from the get go, therefore would be reminded of his complicity every time he saw Zinger. We don’t know exactly what he knew and when he knew it. Unless I am missing something in the report. Beach did not make a full complaint until after he heard about the Michigan player, which was some time after 2013, and Chevy was gone by then so he would not be privy to any ongoing involvement with Beach and the Hawksn. Beach found out by doing a random Google search. Can anyone say Chevy knew about that incident either? As for Heisinger, working with Graham James in 1984 and being a reference in 1994 for the Calgary job, two years before any allegation sever came out against James, is a far cry from knowing what he did and being silent. But the media would like to connect those dots in a way, hence the Lyons article suggesting Heisinger is unfit to be GM because of who he knew, and not what he knew. And easy to say “well he should condemn and he didn’t” without knowing the full contact of the conversation with Lyons and how Lyons is quoting him. If you saw Jeff Hamilton’s line of questioning to Paul Maurice and only got Maurice’s “I can’t comment” you might say Maurice is covering up. But when you hear Hamilton’s initial questions about how this news has affected the dressing room, and why is this more prevalent in hockey than anywhere else, and Maurice’s comment is “I don’t know that it is more prevalent in hockey than anywhere else” and then gets challenged by Hamilton (who points out he did 3 years research for a story) and accuses Maurice of “waxing poetic” on all sorts of things but being strangely right-lipped about this, the statement “I can’t comment, I have not done three years of research on it and I have not seen the final Beach report yet, so let me look at it and I will be better able to answer questions after tonight’s game” takes on a whole different meaning. And this is directly from Hamilton’s Twitter feed, so I am quoting his words for that interaction. Bottom line, we don’t have the full story yet, and as important as investigative journalism is, we should not jump the gun based on partial information and media spin about who knows what and who should be held to account before both sides of the story are out in full.

That is an assumption that has yet to be proven as it relates to EVERYONE in the room. And that is the issue. McDonough said he would handle it and did not. He is covering up. Quenneville did not want it being discussed because it would distract from the Cup run. He also lied to the press in 2021 when he said he had no knowledge of any incident before being asked by the press at that moment. He is covering up. Cheveldayoff has said he was not aware of anything until just prior to Alsrich’s termination with the club. Loose language but not a lie. But if you want to say the standard is “whoever knew and did not ensure an investigation happened is culpable” OK that’s fine and maybe is the correct approach to take and the only way to ensure that this never happens again, but then get a very long list ready. Because you can add all the players, media who were within earshot when things were said according to Beach himself, the mental health coach who reported it and by all accounts did the right thing, but did not ensure that the investigation happened or that Aldrich was never hired again (so did he not go far enough and should he be held accountable?), the NHLPA who offered counselling but did not demand a further investigation, or the NHL who had to be kicked dragging and screaming into an investigation despite a whole summer or rumours. I think Chevy is on the inside of this, and in enough of a power position here, that he is to be held accountable. But to assume he willingly engaged in a cover-up when the report has not directly linked him to that is jumping the gun, and using a blanket approach of complicity by silence really opens the flood gates to a ton of people and can put an unfair legal burden on some who may not be in a position to do anything of consequence or have an honest belief others with more power will do it.

Yes it is very simple. But how complicated does it get if Chevy did not knowingly go along with it, had no intention of sweeping it under the rug, and was kept out of the loop from McDonough’s, Bowman’s and Quenneville’s decision-making? And based a wrong assumption on seeing Aldrich removed from the team? But who refused to do so? We know McDonough did, and Quenneville wanted it kept quiet. Bowman was privy to more than just that one meeting so he was involved in the follow-up and seemingly took more responsibility to ensure the right things were done or not done. Can anyone say with certainty that Cheveldayoff was active in the cover-up? The report does not go there. So, is being is the room enough to implicate him? A simple question but maybe not a black and white answer.

What I am suggesting is that one possibility is that Cheveldayoff was told at the meeting that McDonough would handle it by McDonough himself (Bowman’s account seems to corroborate this), saw that Aldrich was no longer on the team a few weeks later, and was unaware that he had been given the option to resign vs face an investigation, and was also not privy to the positive job review written by Quenneville. I am not saying how it was handled was sufficient, but that Cheveldayoff may have had no idea that it was handled that way. But because he was “in the room” it is being assumed he was part of every decision made. His account is very sparse on facts (not a good look, but maybe truly how he remembers it), his subsequent non-speak to the media may be justified by the fact that there is still an active lawsuit and he doesn’t want it tried in the media ahead of time (which is clearly happening, and as disgusting as the story is, everyone is still entitled to due process in the law and should not be pre-judged online or in the media). It is a bad look from a moral point of view, but if Cheveldayoff was left in the dark (and yes, I have read the report, and beyond being present at the meeting, no one points the finger at him in any way as being part of a cover-up like Quenneville or McDonough wanted, or taking or being directed to take responsibility like Bowman or McDonough did. So is being in the meeting and nothing else enough to get him axed? And if yes, what of everyone else who knew but did not independently act to ensure everything was done that did not get done?

Agreed. So does it end with Chevy? Because there are a bunch more who knew and said nothing and did not press the matter, and if guilt by association is the standard, then more heads should roll. This is the tricky part with Cheveldayoff, if you take him at his word. He was privy to information about misconduct with a player, Beach acknowledges that he kept the specific details to himself for some time, so how much they knew is a live question. It seems to be common consensus that the decision at that meeting was that the hockey ops people would continue to focus on hockey and the management side (president and Vice President) would address the issue. Aldrich was let go a month later. Could Chevy have reasonably assumed that the matter had been handled after an internal investigation based on the result? And did he have the power as an AGM handling cap space issues to challenge the team President? Was he aware of the positive job review Quenneville wrote? Was he aware of the later hiring of Aldrich to a Michigan high school? Unlike Quenneville, he has not been caught in a lie, and has been cooperative with the investigation, from what we’ve been told. For the record, I think his answers have been non-committal and greasy enough that it is not acceptable to keep him on, but that is my lone opinion. Just raising these questions to determine where the line is drawn between having full knowledge, having partial knowledge, being assigned to deal with it, or being told it was being handled, to actively discouraging any action? If the baseline is “if you know you tell” then there is a long line of coaches, staff, players, apparently media according to Beach, and sadly Beach himself, who never reported it to police because he felt trapped, which allowed the subsequent assault at Michigan to happen. Surely Beach cannot be punished for his inaction given his place in it all, but where does the “you know and YOU had a responsibility to report while this person knew but they don’t” line get drawn. Maybe the simple line of “if you were in that meeting and were management in any capacity that is he line” but it may inculcate some who were there but did not hold true power, and may exculpatory others who knew but deferred to others when they could have spoken up. Not a black and white issue, as much as the NHL would like to fit it into a tidy box.

So if/when Chevy resigns or is let go, how quickly does the story die? He would be the last one in that meeting so from the media and NHL perspective, I would wager that would represent the accountability that is being demanded from many quarters. But how far should this reach? The NHLPA knew about his complaint and offered counselling but took no legal action on his behalf or investigated the complaint. The NHL at first did not want to investigate either until the media made noise. According to Beach his teammates all knew yet none of them are being forced to be kicked out of the league. Beach said comments were made in practice to him by teammates in front of other players, coaches and media. Should that media also be held accountable for not saying anything? And of Steve Lyon wants to go after Heisinger because of his connection to Graham James, then should Joe Sakic be removed from Colorado and have his name removed from the Cup since he was a player on the Broncos when James coached, and he never spoke out about what was an open secret in Swifr Current. And if the answer there is no because as a player Sakic had limited power to do anything, then does Chevy get any benefit of the explanation that he was not the decision-maker in that meeting as merely the cap management guy Chicago, or has the decision already been made to remove him to help the league save face (all while the court case is still ongoing with a private report now being made very public and rendering any fair due process in the courts moot with the media and court of public opinion having already passed judgment)? How far down the rabbit hole will this go?

Found the other two. 1991 was Pal Sartori and 2000 was co-coordinators Dickie Adams and Joe Perella.