Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Eleven

  1. 3 minutes ago, RochesterExpat said:

    I understand your point but I think it's arguing a different point to what @Eleven is making. Many owners did speak out and one can easily argue it wasn't enough that they didn't all speak out. The context of the quote we're discussing is about choosing a single spokesperson to speak on behalf of all the owners (as Pegula said, a person like Charlton Heston for the NRA). Terry Pegula wanted that spokesperson to be black. None of the owners were black. 

    We drifted slightly from the original intent which was the owners wanted the league to have a spokesperson. I agree with you the owners should have spoke up in unison and appointing a spokesperson could have (should have?) been done in conjunction with that motion. All Eleven is stating is that the direct comment about a spokesperson isn't really that problematic and is quite sensible (choosing to go with someone who is Black, that is).

    Thank you very much for saying what I wanted to say but just didn't have the words/time for.  You nailed it.

    • Like (+1) 1
  2. 9 minutes ago, SwampD said:

    Sorry, I'm having a hard time believing that a Black spokesperson would have been more powerful than a white owner coming out and saying that they supported the message that Kaepernick was trying to convey. Instead, they blackballed him. They sent the exact message they wanted.

    It's not whether it's more powerful.  It's whether it's more appropriate for the Black players to rely on whitey to get their messages across, and I think the answer to that question is NO.  They felt hurt because of racial prejudices and I think it would be natural for them to want someone who looks like them, who had their experiences, to be their face and voice.

    The face and voice of the 1960s civil rights movement was King, not Johnson and not White people in power.

  3. 1 hour ago, Weave said:

    Someone reported thar Babcock asked a player or players for pics from their phone and he displayed them on his monitor.

    Babcock responded that it was during 1 on 1’s with his players and they showed him, and he showed them, family pics.  He displayed the pics and they talked about then. He said it was nothing more than a getting to know everyone effort.


    22 minutes ago, shrader said:

    I heard a handful of quotes from a few of their players who had nothing but good things to say about the whole thing.  It was mostly a "that's your family? hey, here's mine" sort of thing.

    Whatever people think of Babcock, I don't really feel like Bissonnette is someone I'm turning to for just about anything.


    11 minutes ago, Marvin said:

    That is probably the best.  Skepticism as the default.

    Thanks guys.  Seems like a tempest in a teapot here.

  4. 6 minutes ago, RochesterExpat said:

    I agree. The issue is really that in polite society, you aren't supposed to actually state the obvious like "the spokesperson should be black." Stating it was a mistake on Terry's part. It's not racist like the suit alleges. It's just not the wisest choice of words he could have made in that situation.

    It was at a meeting with a LOT of Black players and a Black NFLPA president (who praised the meeting).  I think he was capable of reading the room.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Agree 1
  5. 1 hour ago, SwampD said:

    Yeah, the more I think about that quote, the more blockheaded it becomes, as if civil rights are only an African American issue. If anything, when you think about who was stirring that sh!tpot at the time, the spokespeople should have been the owners themselves.

    An AA spokesperson would fall on deaf ears for those who were making this an issue.

    Except that only considers one of the two problems the league had at the time:

    1.  There were a lot of players who were hurting because of racial injustice.  They needed a face and a voice because Kaepernick had been blackballed by the league (and I'm still angry about that).

    2.  There was a sitting president who was criticizing the league and turning eyeballs off of screens.

    A Black spokesperson is an attempt to address both issues.  That gives the people who are hurting a face and a voice, and also allows the league to respond to the president.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Agree 1
  6. 16 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

    Has it been quoted? Is it the one where he’s suggesting that the Kaep/BLM stuff could be troweled over if the NFL could find an appropriate … black person* to serve as the face of the league on the issue? That’s how I recall hearing it.

    * I typed and deleted other terms here.

    If you're referring to the excerpts above, that is a cynical interpretation IMO.

  7. 3 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

    Why would this surprise anyone? It would strike me as utterly ordinary for a horseshoe up his butt Boomer billionaire from Podunk, PA to say some dumb sh1t about black people agitating for civil rights.

    It doesn't seem to me that that is what he was doing, at least not from that excerpt.

    17 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

    FWIW the Times just let me read the whole thing without paying.

    Yeah, I'm over-limit though.  

  8. 2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:


    1 minute ago, RochesterExpat said:

    Assuming it's the 2018 meeting, I included a link in my analysis of the complaint because it was cited in the complaint. Here you go:


    Can someone post the relevant excerpt with context?

  9. 14 hours ago, tom webster said:

    So you are choosing to believe those who support your narrative as opposed to those who don’t. Cool.


    2 hours ago, tom webster said:

    I’ll admit I was wrong when it turns out I was wrong but the next time Andrew Peters is right about anything Sabre related will be the first time.

    I just want to note that I'm not here to rub salt...I just wanted to post what I had heard from Peters.  He's no more reliable than Chad is, IMO.

  10. 56 minutes ago, Brawndo said:



    From the article 

    Signs at the corners of Illinois Street and Perry Street and Washington Street and Perry Street, proclaiming the stretch of Perry Street: "RJ Way."

    I kind of like the idea but I think it would be nicer to simply rename Perry Street as Jeanneret Street.  I mean, who knows who Perry was?  Or that Illinois guy, for that matter?

    EDIT:  Perry deserves his street:  https://buffalostreets.com/2014/10/27/perry/

    Maybe rename Alumni Plaza instead.

  11. 13 minutes ago, SDS said:


    Old billionaire white dude who lives in Florida makes a racist statement vs someone making up said statement and filing a private report to the league. 

    What do you think the betting lines are here?

    I'm not going to prejudge either of them based upon their net worth, color, or state of residence (nice shading there, BTW), I'll tell you that much.

    What a bunch of nonsense.

    • Like (+1) 1
  12. 30 minutes ago, JohnC said:

    If the NHL club has one exemption opportunity every five years, I doubt there will be five different NHL teams making the same request at the same time. 


    14 minutes ago, JohnC said:

    I'm aware that he was referring to the CHL with an abundance of elite talent. My point was that even if the elite talent was on this CHL team it doesn't mean that the team owning the rights to one of the players will be able to designate the player for an AHL assignment because their exemption was already used. My point comes down to that the usage will be very limited and less likely to significantly impact the CHL team. 

    I don't get how these agree with each other, but I have had a LONG day so maybe my brain is worn out.

  13. Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:

    How would you fix it to keep the CHL viable and give the players the most appropriate opportunity?


    Well, there's a few things going on here.

    1.  Outside of the draft system and ELCs, I support a player's right to play where he wants.  Why should Savoie watch his development be curbed because of some stupid agreement?

    2.  I don't really care about the viability of the CHL.  I don't know why I should.  If it disappears, there will be other development paths.  I care about the Sabres.  (You may have noticed me saying something similar in various and sundry Amerks threads over the years--I don't really care about the Amerks except to the extent that the team develops Sabres.)

    3.  It's not really my job to fix it, is it?  I would get rid of the whole agreement.  But a nice compromise might be to allow an NHL team one exemption per year.

    • Like (+1) 4
  14. https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/sabres-matt-savoie-unlikely-to-receive-an-exemption-to-start-season-in-rochester/article_d4d79f9c-5234-11ee-a27f-679e03c5b1ca.html#tracking-source=home-top-story


    Summary:  Even though he's 20, 19, he doesn't have 4 full CHL seasons, and doesn't turn 21 until Jan 1--one day too late.  Shane Wright received an exemption, but Lysowski thinks Savoie won't.  And I still think this CHL-NHL agreement is absurd.

    • Like (+1) 2
    • Sad 1
    • Thanks (+1) 1
  15. Just now, That Aud Smell said:

    I'm so far removed from this realm - I don't think my life experiences have much bearing on the matter. The tone-deaf aspect is what makes me think that he's not using a PR professional who charges $1000 an hour. Those cats are worth every penny when you have billions at stake.

    Matt Pegula's j1zz hats, fo sho.

    Agreed on the PR pro angle.

    And just gross.

  • Create New...