Sean Avery
I’m not willing to defend Sean Avery in any respect even though I think he is a good hockey player. I’m certainly not willing to defend his comments about Dion Phaneuf or Elisha Cuthbert. If there was ever a doubt about whether or not Avery is an obnoxious boor, they have been put to rest.
At the same time, I wish the NHL had passed on the suspension. I don’t like the idea that Gary Bettman can suspend a player for what he said off the ice. I don’t trust him enough without impossibly clear guidelines. What is allowed and what isn’t? Would it be okay if Avery had sneered at Phaneuf about his girl friend without using the phrase “sloppy seconds”? Would it be okay if Avery called Bettman a twit? If Avery complained about the ice or the officiating?
Bettman should have let Dallas manage the problem. He’s their employee and his comments reflected on Avery and his team, not on the NHL.
Update: Duhatchek squeezes another column out of the affair:
The immediate challenge for Bettman, who was perfectly within his rights to suspend Avery for conduct detrimental to the league, is to decide the number of games. The league suspends players for racial slurs. It would be hypocritical not to adhere to a similar code of conduct for blatant misogyny.
In general, short single-digit suspensions are seen as slaps on the wrist. This will require a message and usually a message is in the 10-to 20-game range.
Bettman was within his rights, but he’s exercising those rights in his usual incompetent manner. Avery is not being suspended for blatant mysogyny. (I don’t imagine referees hear many racial slurs on the ice, but they hear a lot about pussies. Will they be tossing players and making reports about mysogyny in the future?) Avery said something he would usually say during the warm-up. He’s being suspended for saying it on television. Even then, twenty games?
He’s being suspended for being Steve Avery.
Update II: Six games. The NHLPA isn’t happy about it.
Bettman should have let Dallas manage the problem.
without a doubt. but that would have meant not taking every opportunity to expand, or at least define, the powers of the league office. there’s no question avery’s remarks were beyond inappropriate and demanding disciplinary reaction from some source. but the nhlpa is simply not doing its job if it doesnt file a grievance on this (putting them in the very unenviable position of having to defend current public enemy no.1 – gee, i wonder if that wasnt a part of herr gary’s plan?). it’s at least a squeaky slope from “sloppy seconds” to “company union” talk.
all that said, probably the most interesting thing about sean avery is that he’s a damn good hockey player, and has been for some time. and that said, duthie’s story today from the three unnamed dallas players is just shocking. sure, losing pisses everyone off, but for avery to act in such a way as to cause his teammates to hate him that much, maybe he really just is that dumb/obnoxious.
I don’t like the idea that Gary Bettman can suspend a player for what he said off the ice. I don’t trust him enough without impossibly clear guidelines. What is allowed and what isn’t?
Tyrants rule with the arbitrary, not the clearly defined (no matter how strict). Breed enough fear & uncertainty, and eventually the players will censor themselves.
a couple more points, i find it interesting, and rather predictable, that on the same night of avery’s comments, scottie upshall was ejected for boarding for basically taking a full speed, multiple-stride run at a completely oblivious and defenseless evgeni artyukhin, who was not sideways or turning as are most of the victims of hits from behind, but literally parallel to the boards and stationary. luckily there was no injury on the play (i imagine it’s difficult to injure someone when youre giving up 6 inches and 60 pounds), but we should be talking about the 5 game suspension upshall should get rather than the lifetime ban it appears coming avery’s way.
anyone else find it sickening that avery can say something like, “typical of all french guys in the league, running around and not backing it up,” and that elicits very muted criticism from the league or the public.
and i want to go back to duthie’s article with the three unnamed sources. i find their comments to be pretty amazing. compare their thoughts on avery to this beauty of a quote from scott gomez:
I think if you look at the reaction on the bench, we probably all cried. For what the guy has gone through, that’s a true professional. Not once has he ever complained. He skates every day after (practice). He’s a great teammate. He doesn’t say a word. If there are parents out there that want their kids to be a hockey player and a great guy, you’ve got to look at Petr Prucha.
before i ever actually started playing hockey and been on teams where people didnt like each other very much, i would have dramatically underestimated how important stuff like that is, much more so in hockey than other sports.
I think the problems in the Dallas dressing room are a separate issue, alhough it will (and would have in the absence of a Bettman suspension) inform how the Stars address the situation.
To me, that’s the worst part of the Bettman over-reaction. It could limit the actions Dallas takes. Once the NHL delivers up a suspension, what can the Stars do if they wanted to do worse? A lengthy suspension from Bettman will surely be grieved but however that turns out, how can Dallas do anything more? If, for example, they wanted to try to void Avery’s contract…
The other issue, Raj notes. If Mirtle is right, Avery is going to get really tagged. To equate this stupid, crude, comment with a vicious hit or assault is crazy.
I am still blown away at the level of anger and bitterness towards this guy in the Dallas dressing room. He has only been there for about 10 weeks, including camp, and already he is so hated that they don’t want to see his face again even though he is a skilled player. I knew Avery was a lone wolf and not the warmest fellow in the world, but to wear out your welcome that fast takes some doing.
I am reminded of the Crash Davis line from Bull Durham:
“Your shower shoes have fungus on them. If you win 20 in the show, you can let the fungus grow back and the press’ll think you’re colorful. Until you win 20 in the show, however, it means you are a slob.”
If Avery was having a Selke Trophy kind of year, and Dallas was winning, there would be a lot greater tolerance for his act. The fact is, however, that he is playing like garbage, and the team is losing. Those of you who have played competitive team sports will know what I mean – when you are winning, the beer tastes better, the bus rides are shorter, you are fine with whatever lousy music is playing in the room, and even the most annoying guy on your team doesn’t bother you at all. When you are losing, though, that all changes in a hurry. I think what you are seeing here is a lot of frustration in Dallas over how things are going on the ice, combined with the fact that Avery appears to have grow even more obnoxious and eccentric with each passing season. (You’ll note the Rangers didn’t even try to re-sign him. Perhaps a little bit of back channel research amongst Ranger players would have saved Dallas a lot of grief.)
What you say is right, Dennis, and I don’t think it is healthy that Stars are so angry. It isn’t like Avery is the only problem on that team.
I think the whole thing has become crazy. What, exactly, was Gary Bettman trying to accomplish? If Avery is really detrimental and he wants this issue to go away, he calls Tom Hicks and tells Hicks to do something about Avery. Hicks sends Avery home. The Stars deal with it as quietly as possible.
The alternative is to create a media circus with a suspension, create another circus when Avwery troops to New York and continue the circus tomorrow when he announces his suspension. With every retelling of the story we have to hear Avery’s insult again. Did Bettman want the circus?
I am still blown away at the level of anger and bitterness towards this guy in the Dallas dressing room.
Isn’t it just mind-bending? I agree with all your points about losing affecting the mood and making the players generally more ornery and all that. But still. How the hell do you piss off your teammates so much in a couple months that they’re openly, albeit anonymously, saying they don’t want you back and that he’s an idiot and undermining everything they do. Don’t you think Avery would have at least tried to play it safe and not alienate everyone in the room for the first part of the season? Even by the end of his time in NY, I think the most you’d get out of Ranger players is rolled eyes when asked about Avery, rather than vitriol coming out of Dallas.
It’s funny because Avery literally saved the Rangers season two years ago, and he quickly became the toast of Ranger fans at MSG. Things can change quick, Avery found out the hard way.
You’ll note the Rangers didn’t even try to re-sign him.
Yea, but they also wrote a blank check to Wade Redden, so I’m not sure you can go by Sather’s moves. That said, I’m fairly sure Avery was not brought back for off-ice issues rather than his play or salary demands.
With respect to why the league would step in instead of letting Dallas handle it, the rationale would be that the key problem of the remarks is that they are arguably misogynist and thus disparaging of a chunk of the NHL’s fan base, and that they go beyond criticism of a fellow player and attack a third party (Cuthbert).
Accoridngly, on the basis that the remarks have damaged the reputation of both the NHL and the Stars organization, that is something that a suspension by the Stars could not fully accomplish. If, as the above analysis presupposes, he has injured the league, the league should punish.
I would also suspect that the Stars’ scope of punishment is less than that of the league. Any arbitrator’s assessment of a team’s suspension might be able to take into account the reputational damage to the team itself but would not take into account the damage to the league’s reputation. This would result in some of the damage of his remarks (the damage to the league as a whole) going unaddressed.
One amy agree or disagree, but that is the rationale. If one accepts the existence of reputational damage as laid out above, I would not think a league suspension is all that arguable (leaving aside, of course, the duration issue).
One amy agree or disagree, but that is the rationale. If one accepts the existence of reputational damage as laid out above, I would not think a league suspension is all that arguable (leaving aside, of course, the duration issue).
It is not a good rationale.
The “reputational damage” is virtually none. If there is some such damage, the very fact Bettman intervened makes it far, far worse. If everybody had ignored it as another Avery stupidity, the story is now all but over. Instead I’ve heard the comments dozens of times now and I’ll hear them dozens more.
I don’t think you can leave aside the duration issue. The league is going to look really stupid when saying “sloppy seconds” turns out to be a worse crime than drilling a guy from behind.
The only good rationale is that Bettman agrees with Avery and he believes that any publicity is better than no publicity. If you want to argue that Bettman is sleazy enough to use the issue to remind people the NHL exists, well, okay. I can almost believe that’s his rationale – to generate even more buzz even if that buzz surrounds something that is less than positive. Gary riding in to save the day to keep the pot boiling and the league in the media.
One must distinguish between the viability of the rationale and the assumption underlying it, which is what i did above. i would suggest that you are commingling the two.
IF one assumes reputational damage, then discipline is merited.
IF, as you state, the rep damage is virtually non-existent, then the discipline is not merited, since the damage is a necessary pre-condition for discipline.
As a notional construct, however, the methodology holds together.
Myself, if I am the NHL’s CEO, I would think that, from a risk management perspective, such remarks might lead to a lot of backlash from a very important female demographic if not acted upon. If I do act upon it, I accomplish a lot:
1. I satisfy that demographic without the backlash;
2. I am not going to get much, if any, negative publicity, except from a select few;
3. I keep others from going further down the slippery slope.
4. I keep Avery from being emboldened, since he clearly is a train wreck waiting to happen. This is such a cry for attention that, if he doesn’t get it now, he will escalate his outrageousness, until he says something that hurts the league even worse.
As an aside, there is no need for a connection between on-ice discipline and off-ice discipline. One is primarily related to physical risk and danger to the players. The other is primarily related to the reputational risk of the league and is more monetary in nature.
As an aside, there is no need for a connection between on-ice discipline and off-ice discipline.
I don’t know if there’s any issue of “need” here, but certainly there’s a perception issue from the fans that does matter. In fact, since this whole debacle seems to be about appearances and reputations, I’d think that the comparisons that fans will draw to previous suspensions should matter quite a bit.
Whether it’s important to you or not, it will be somethings fans consider and rightly or wrongly will use to judge the league’s actions here. The league took a hard stand on Avery, which is its right, but it serves as a pretty handy contrast to other issues which the NHL is not taking a hard stand on.
IF one assumes reputational damage, then discipline is merited.
Point taken. IF pigs can fly, Bettman made the good move. A backlash from female fans? Like they will think Avery is an asshole or something? How does that make the female demographic different from the male demographic? Avery is the NHL bad boy and he enjoys the role. And not to defend the guy or anything, relative to the bad boys in the other sports? Avery is very nearly benign.
He is despised. So what? What form is this backlash supposed to take? If history is a guide, fans will plunk down good money to boo Sean Avery. He is doing no harm to the reputation of the league.
2. I am not going to get much, if any, negative publicity, except from a select few.
I think this is the nub of it. Bettman figures he can beat up on Sean Avery without anybody saying boo about it. Many fans will even applaud Bettman. Hurray! I guess this is important when a guy can’t be introduced to hockey fans without getting booed.
And the cost of the grandstanding? He compounds the problems in Dallas. He sets a dubious precedent that encourages players to be bland. He sets a precedent that will be trotted out as a complaint about many violence suspensions in the future. Most importantly, he pisses off Paul Kelly and creates a needless fight with the NHLPA.
I guess that’s all a small price to pay to let Gary look good pounding Avery.
rajeev wrote:
it’s funny because Avery literally saved the Rangers season two years ago, and he quickly became the toast of Ranger fans at MSG. Things can change quick, Avery found out the hard way. … That said, I’m fairly sure Avery was not brought back for off-ice issues rather than his play or salary demands.
On the Rangers, Avery had Brendan Shanahan (who he looked up to) and Jaromir Jagr in the locker room. Both of them supported Avery from the get go and I think kept Avery in line (especially Shanahan) and kept any locker-room tensions in check. Neither of those players were in the Rangers’ plans for this year, and I think that played a role in how much the Rangers were willing to give to Avery. They did make him a very competitive (and probably more accurate) contract offer [allegedly 4 y, 12M] to the Stars. So its not like they pushed him out the door.
I can’t speak for any more than this one female fan, but I can’t see any kind of backlash from women. I actually thought his comment was immature, stupid, juvenile, and marked him as an arrogant tool – but hardly suspension-worthy. I’m more upset by the lack of any consistent message on dangerous hits. Crude jokes are not nearly as “damaging to the league” as season-ending and career-shortening concussions, in my mind. This sends a message that the league is far more concerned with how their image appears than the actual safety of their players. Style over substance, because the style part is easier and dealing with substance is harder work.
Although I guess it’s better than someone saying that Elisha Cuthbert should have kept her head up.