That Aud Smell

These hypotheticals are all well and good. I’m dealing with the matter at hand. (And it’s been a good give and take.)

I mentioned upthread that it was weird that she’s not listed as an owner of the Bills. Days gone by, she was patently a Bills owner and not a Sabres owner. Nah? Anyhoo. You hafta realize that a significant part of why I engage is because I enjoy it as an exercise. Sparring. (Yin to my Yang?)

That’s a good post. I’m on a mobile - can’t reply at length. I’ve touched on plenty of material to substantiate my take that part of what’s at play is a discomfort with a lady taking the reins. And I’ll stand by that. One thing: The old saw about she’s here because “her husband bought the team” is contrary not only to basic concepts of he marital estate (I ain’t litigating it), fuzzier and less legal but nonetheless transcendent concepts surrounding marriage covenants, it’s also a jab at Kim by virtue of her status as Terry’s wife and a woman. I won’t abide it.

Those poor Buffalo News reporters. Will they still get their big ol’ goody bags from Russ at the holidays?

I’m unsure of Kim’s precise experience to date. I’m sure she has material experience in business administration. I’m unsure how she’ll fare as president of the Sabres and Bills. I am sure she co-owns the teams. I’m sure she’s president of the teams — not president of business nor president of hockey (football) ops. I’m confident that JBOT has principal responsibility for hockey ops, and Beane for football ops. I am sure those 2 GMs will work collaboratively with their president, who will have high level input on hockey/football matters, as will owner and CEO Terry. I am sure that success hinges on how well JBOT and Beane can do their jobs. I am optimistic in that regard. I think bias is revealed by saying Kim’s husband bought the teams.

I can’t post it at the moment, but there’s a Tweet out there that compares and contrasts how Bucky addressed alleged sleazy behaviour by Lesean McCoy and Brandon. The McCoy stuff occurred some time ago. McCoy got dragged by Bucky as repugnant; an immature idiot not worth the team’s time. Bucky acted as a scathing scold. Brandon was treated as a tragic figure - “seduced” by his power and position. Bucky refused to serve as the morals police and said private matters are private. Sod off forever, Bucky. Forever.

If there is, as is suggested, some massive interest in knowing precisely what that lady is doing (seriously: WHAT IS SHE DOING?!), then that just proves the point. She’s president of a hockey team like dozens of other businessmen have been before her. Something about *her* appears to be engendering a peculiar level of interest, though, in knowing just what (she thinks) she’ll be doing. /drums figures /arches eyebrows /smirks knowingly

What was Brandon’s title? President, right?

There’s no issue, as I see it. The Sabres have no president of business and no president of hockey. They have a president. As a practical matter, JBOT is like a senior vp of hockey at this point. Kim and Terry are in charge. Same as it ever was — or, at least, same as it’s been since February 2011.

LOL.

We are through the looking glass at this point.

Fair enough. There's a flavour that does seem to emerge more as you scroll through his Tweets and Replies. He doesn't really acknowledge the legitimacy of the points made in reply that there are plenty of successful top execs in the NHL who aren't "hockey people", who are more business people, and who are, as it so happens, men. In any case, and IIRC, Harrington has a decent track record of being good to and about women in sports (I think he used to cover girls HS stuff back when no one else was doing it?). So, I don't think this really goes too far. It's more Harrington being a Twitter d1ck, as per usual (and hence why Friedman was, like, peace-out). The sexist boor is Bucky. Far as I can tell, no one here has assumed or even suggested that.

I’m not entirely sure. It’s a sub-account Tweeting and tagging Bucky. It might actually be Bucky cross-Tweeting himself.

@Flagg. There's a lot of stuff on Harrington's TL. Here's the one that seemed to start it: A whole bunch of blowback started. Dozens of people jumped all over him saying that, maybe even without realizing it, he went with something as strong as "laughable" because Kim's a woman. Harrington responded over and over again: It's not about her being a woman, it's about her being a person who is unqualified to oversee hockey ops. And then the rejoinders came that the scrutiny he was applying to this incoming businesswoman seemed ... far stricter and more exacting than that which is applied to non-hockey business men who serve as presidents. In other words, people accused him of using his "qualifications" threshold as a pretext for giving vent to a bias against a woman taking on these positions. People pointed out all kinds of stuff about how her qualifications were at least as good as a long list of successful FO people. And Harrington shot those down one by one for various reasons. The whole thing wound up as a sh1t show. Predictably. The absolute most benign view of the matter for Harrington is that he was wholly insensitive to, and perhaps therefore disrespectful of, the societal precedent and gender dynamic at play in having a woman take on such a significant position of power and authority in big league sports. Like my youngest girl said: "That is so cool." "Kim Pegula as permanent president -- LMFAO" is just not a good look in this day and age. I genuinely, in good faith, have no idea what your point is here.

Because of the centuries long history of institutionalized sexism that's, like, been pretty bad for women? I think we are talking past each other.

Ha - I'd submit that if the 2 people involved were something other than two white dudes, or let's just say two men (the key, to me, is like-with-like), then the stupid sh1t would not have been said about Kim P. as a girl president and Friedman would not have felt the need to unfollow Harrington. It is more than fairly implied and inferred in the context of the statement.

Ah, gotcha. I can try to harvest the Tweets. They wound up in my TL (even though, like Friedman did recently, I unfollowed Harrington long ago) because other people I follow were eye-rolling at him. Nothing here, I suppose. I just meant that, globally, if you're a white guy hanging with another white guy -- and let's add "straight" to that description to further expand it -- you might never have reason to know that your buddy is racist, sexist, and/or a homophobe. You just might never know that.

Huh? Which? Hmm. I'm still not sure I follow. I guess I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't form opinions, make inferences -- hell, pass judgments -- on people's values, morals, etc. based on your interactions with them. Of course, we all do that. I was just saying that those judgments should not preclude or obstruct you from allowing for the possibility that a person you think you know might also do or say some pretty heinous stuff -- stuff that seems inconsistent with what you know about them. The white dude paradigm was just being offered by me because it's Friedman and Harrington. I am pretty sure that they're both white. (I only qualify that because I am allowing for the possibility that Friedman is Jewish.**) So, Friedman says, or implies, "Gee. Mike's always been a solid guy to me. I know he can come off as brusque or short. But I've never seen him do something, or heard him say something, that made me think 'damn, that guy's a sexist.' And I wouldn't be friendly with someone I thought was sexist. So I'm pretty sure he's not sexist." It's just sorta myopic on Friedman's part. Harrington triggered the he-man woman hater's club of the Twitterverse (and those who oppose such thoughts) with some Tweets that hinted at "hey, get a load of the girl who's gonna be president of the sports teams." That sorta stuff, standing alone, should be enough to prompt Friedman to think, "man -- that's not the Harrington I know, or thought I knew -- maybe he's kinda backward that way." But he didn't. At least not yet. Although he DID un-follow him. Which is maybe the final word on the matter. ** I'm not trying to stir the pot, I swear. Just trying to recognize that people who are Jewish have their own unique issues to deal with in terms of animus based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

Well turned. Hmm. Can you elaborate? (No snark intended.) Yeah - he booted that grounder. Hard.

It seemed to. I re-read what you posted, and still think that it does.

Or, as white dudes, we should not rule out a fellow white dude's ability to hold repugnant values just because he's generally pretty cool with other white dudes. To wit: My brother-in-law.

And a deficit of the same is what appears to be holding back Risto.

There are rails here, and the track being laid charts a path of progress. The work is uneven and imperfect, but worthwhile. Those who refuse to get on board get left behind -- standing in a field, yelling at clouds. Asinine. As for this, I submit that it comes of being a careful student of human behaviour (with all of the attendant foibles) and having an imagination.

I didn't find his follow-up problematic (the "rush rush rush" take), but I agree with this assessment of the initial quote (with all the "like's" (a sure tell that he was struggling a bit)) -- and I agree especially with this. This advances nothing.

^ Good stuff. I get the sense that he and Eichel are/were about even as prospects go (with an edge to Dahlin, I think), but it probably seems that close because Eichel plays the pivot. I'm frickin' pumped.