With the ongoing drama of Gregg Drinnan vs The Kamloops Blazers, I've been on the sidelines somewhat watching as the story unfolds. I've been able to escape to Sun Peaks for a couple days of skiing in between broadcasts, and I've felt a little removed from the proceedings.But they've heated up....
Rick "The Bear" Wile of Radio NL was in contact with former Blazer great and part-owner Mark Recchi to get his take on this.
Recchi responded in this manner:
"For years now we've dealt with this negativity towards these young men and we want to keep their self esteem, it's important. We have to be responsible for these young men who come in and play for our franchise, the community and the City of Kamloops. They are going to become young men, through that. I don't think anybody as a parent would want their children to be constantly in a negative environment. As owners, we have to protect their kids and that's what we're doing."
Bear continued the interview....Recchi feels the criticism is unique....
"I haven't really seen anything like this. It's upsetting because I feel it really impacts our kids. At the NHL level, we are all big boys and get paid to perform but we don't even get this negativity that the organization and players of the Blazers get. I think it's important we take a step back and take a look at this and make sure our kids are protected."Recchi also eluded the Drinnan ban on team personnel is endorsed by the Western Hockey League.
"The WHL is also involved. They said they would like it if Gregg Drinnan did not have access down in the dressing room until we have a meeting. The Kamloops Daily News is more than welcome to send someone else for post-game interviews. Gregg Drinnan is welcome to come down to the rink for games and practices. Until their is a resolution between the League, the Blazers and Gregg Drinnan of the KDN, we just don't want him to have access to our players or other team personnel."
------
Bear also filed this podcast .... have a listen. Interesting. It's at the bottom of this podcast page dated Thursday January 6th".
--------
Regardless, I think we have to move forward, get it resolved and get a plan moving forward whether that's with GD or not.
------
The Blazers may have lost their captain for the weekend. Chase Schaber went down with a leg injury vs the Moose Jaw Warriors after an atempted his of Warrior F Dylan Hood.
JC Lipon may return to the line-up after missing Tuesday's game with an ankle injury. The Blazers are also set to get back F Bernhard Keil and F Dalibor Bortnak back from World Juniors and F Logan McVeigh and D Brady Gaudet. I'd expect all or at least three of them to suit-up.
More tomorrow for game-day,
Jon
26 comments:
has Tom Gaglardi made a public comment yet?
"At the NHL level, we are all big boys and get paid to perform but we don't even get this negativity that the organization and players of the Blazers get."
Recchi has been in the NHL for 22 seasons with 7 different teams including 5 years with the heavily scrutinized Montreal Canadiens. For him to make that statement says something about the Blazers treatment by Drinnan.
Hey Jon,
Any chance Schaber is good to go this weekend?
Love your broadcasts and the blog
Cheers!
I haven't been around the team for the past few days to get a Schaber update. I would think he's questionable for the weekend at best
"Recchi also eluded the Drinnan ban on team personnel is endorsed by the Western Hockey League."
Firstly, I suspect what you meant to write was "Recchi also alluded to the Drinnan ban on team personnel being endorsed by the Western Hockey League." (also, later on in your post it should be: "after an attempted hit by Warrior F Dylan Hood")
Secondly, I think you (and Mark) are jumping to conclusions about the "support" that the Blazers have from the WHL. "They said they would like it if Gregg Drinnan did not have access down in the dressing room until we have a meeting." does not imply approval or support, it merely says that the league wants to wait until there's been an "all party" discussion about the issues. I don't see their comments (if Mark has quoted them correctly) as supportive one way or the other.
Thirdly, I have to be honest that I have been reading a number of WHL related blogs for years and it never once occurred to me that Gregg was any more or less critical of the Blazers than he is of any team. I've always found his comments accurate (if painful at times - the truth hurts) so I really struggle to understand what is so negative that he should be limited in his access to players or management. Can you (or anyone) provide some specific examples?
I really don't see how the Blazers can justify this kind of "ban" on a legitimate member of the media. I am going to be enormously disappointed if the Blazers are allowed to cherry pick who covers their team and what they are allowed to write. I certainly wish I could get away with picking who gets to provide feedback to me in my job and what they were allowed to say. :-)
Cheers;
DBC
still looking for comments made by Drinnan regarding individual players. Recchi and Doan seem to reference it like there are many many of these cases yet as an avid reader of the paper and his blog, I cant locate any. I get they are standing behind their GM, who cant seem to take the heat, but to make up lies in their position is weird.
Mr Keen, you should have stayed away from the Drinnan topic if you weren't going to be unbiased. You have no credibility as a journalist moving forward.
I never said I was a journalist... where did I say that?
To DBC, thanks editing my work but it doesn't need it...at least in this case anyways. The WHL knew the ban was going to take place before the team delivered the letter to Drinnan.
Also, if they didn't endorse it, don't you think the team would have been fined by now?
Thanks for the comments though. It's a good debate.
This is an interesting debate that's for sure. I have read most of the articles and I feel that Jon has tried really hard to stay unbiased. I would like to see some examples myself of how he has taken on side over the other. As for the people that hide behind "anonymous" and three letter tags - man up if you are going to blast someone. Jon, keep up the good work.
Gregg, I didn't "blast" anyone, I expressed an opinion and asked for additional details/examples of what the Blazers find so offensive because I can't see it.
Further, your attempt at argumentum ad hominem doesn't change the fact that 1) I never said Jon was (or wasn't) biased in his comments, I said that I think he (and Mark) were jumping to conclusions with regard to their interpretation of the WHL's statement; and 2) I have yet to hear of any issues with the veracity of Gregg D's articles, which would at least be a reasonable justification for this kind of censorship, but instead all I have read so far is that it is "negative", which (to me at the very least) seems like a very weak justification.
Cheers;
DBC
Anybody that criticizes keener for posting an article is howling at the moon. Jon represented himself in Swift Current professionally, and was a great member of the community. Our broadcasts were first class at all times. More important, he took an interest in the community and cared about initiation scores and flag football results as Bronco games. At least that's how the kids felt. I know the guys on the team and the staff were very sad to see him go, as were people in the community. He grew in the position well, and, despite a solid replacement IS missed. When he said he was staying out of it, he has. But he posted an article by Rick Wile, and it is pertinent to the club. I think he should be shown respect for whatever stand he takes. He is a fine young man, who is just trying to make it in a business that takes incredible effort and energy. I would really disagree that his credibility is, or can be, shot down. he built it and its already there. Jon, you are truly missed in SC. You are also conducting yourself in a manner on this issue that is gracious and decent to all parties. Take care bud!
CDSC
DBC and subsequent negative anonymouses: you have been reading GD's blog for too long. There is no call for your negative attitudes here. Are you seriously nitpicking Jon's grammar on a blog post? Point is, when Jon came along we finally got a positive blog about the Blazers instead of a grumpy complainer who lives to stir up controversy. If you like Gregg's blog (I am a loyal reader of his blog as well), that's great. However, If you can't see the degree of negativity he brings to journalism, then you aren't paying attention. Jon is just a Blazer fan like the rest of us and I think that's a refreshing change from what's been shoved down our throats by GD and KDN for the past decade or so.
Jon, prior knowledge does not imply approval. If I tell my boss that I'm about to take a specific course of action, does that automatically mean that he/she approves of it? I would suggest it does not, nor does the league being informed by the Blazers that they were going to take action automatically mean that they (the WHL) approve of it.
If the WHL comes out and says "we support the Blazers and the 'ban' is upheld" then that's a different matter. If that turns out to be the case then I will be (as I have said) enormously disappointed because, based on the articles that I've read, I don't see the issue.
Cheers;
DBC
Spencer, could you be more specific about my "negative attitudes" that you perceive in my posts? I am truly at a loss to understand how expressing an opinion is innately negative.
I read lots of blogs and I don't find Gregg D's blog unreasonably negative with respect to the Blazers. I believe he accurately cites the attendance numbers, playoff record, and current standings of the Blazers. From those raw facts he expresses his opinion, which is certainly not all sunshine and roses (nor should it be).
I live in Calgary and have watched the media here grow increasingly critical of the Flames over the last few years. Should they be 'banned' from talking to the team because they have the gall to reflect on the factual circumstances of the team and express an increasing sense of frustration and angst?
Cheers;
DBC
Thanks Cam, Swift was and has continued to be good to me. A lot of good people/friends back there.
---
I think a lot of the issues the hockey club has with GD will not be aired publicly, rather they will be saved for the meeting January 11th. There is a lot more to this story than the average follower of the league/Blazers will ever know about.
To look at the articles/coverage from this season is really only 10% of the eqaution and personally I can see the other side of the argument if it's based articles/coverage from this season. Unfortunately, it runs much deeper as Bear said in his comment.
Just don't be too quick to judge and take a firm stance.
We will see what plays out. Personally, I'm prepping for the Blazers/Bruins tomorrow night at ISC and will be touching on this debate but won't go into it at great length.
John didnt jump to anything. he provided commentary that recchi alluded to the fact that the whl supported the decision by saying that.....
he didnt jump to a conclusion. a conclusion would have been...
"the whl supports the decision"
keen has stayed neutral. throw all the latin around that you want.
i call it "makeit upis"
CDSC
Well Mr Keen your not a journalist. what are you? A homer broadcaster? I would suspect a broadcaster to be unbiased in a matter such as this. You are a good play by play guy but be careful about saying something that may be interpretted as negative or you could be looking for a job. We all want to see the team succeed but that cannot cloud the medias objectivity. Tell ya what. We will give you 11 seasons of losing hockey and then we will see how much you will tow the party line. Heck how about a theft scandal(patrick) and about 9 coaches to go along with it. Hey how about a player who gets terrible medical treatment(Morrow) too. I think on the ice Bonner may be on the right track but judging by the blue seats off the ice not so much.
Jon, if "There is a lot more to this story than the average follower of the league/Blazers will ever know about." means that Gregg D has been verbally or physically abusive towards the players or staff then that's a different matter entirely.
Likewise, any criminal conduct would also be reasonable grounds for the action being taken. If anything like that is happening then I would whole-heartedly agree with limiting his access to the team.
Naturally I (and others with an arms length view of the situation) wouldn't be privy to those details, we are left with the documentary evidence: his articles and his blog. Based on the information that I have available, I don't understand the action being taken by the Blazers.
Cheers;
DBC
Homer broadcaster? Sure, sounds fine. I think all of us around the league suffer from "homeritis". It comes with the territory. This isn't earth shattering I assure you.
In fact, I've been quoted to say as much:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_thompson_nicola/kamloopsthisweek/sports/112278374.html?mobile=true
The comments are good. It's a healthy debate, but I'll remind you there's a lot to this story that may never come out.
CDSC, not that I think you care, but "argumentum ad hominem" simply means that Gregg H's post opted to comment on the person/people making the comments ("As for the people that hide behind "anonymous" and three letter tags - man up if you are going to blast someone") rather than the comments themselves. Attacking the commentator is an increasingly popular way (especially in the US media) of avoiding any substantive discussions by focusing the debate on the people, not the ideas. Using the Latin expression is no different than using "deja vu". To try and translate it into English equivalent is unwieldy (as evidenced by this rambling paragraph! :-))
In my view, Jon has jumped to a conclusion as evidenced by his subsequent statement "Also, if they didn't endorse it, don't you think the team would have been fined by now?" For some reason, Jon feels that silence equals approval. I respectfully disagree and think that the league has not provided any indication one way or the other.
Cheers;
DBC
DBC, Gregg isn't referring to you I'm sure, I think it's other three-letter handles he's referring to. Just my take, but I think you're ok here.
Jon, if it is true that "there's a lot to this story that may never come out." then the value of any further discussion is suspect.
If all we're doing is debating the merits of the Blazer's 'ban' without the details of the proximate cause of the 'ban', then it's pretty pointless. If that's the case I'll trust the WHL to make the right call and leave it at that.
Thanks for the discussion and I hope the team has a great second half of the season (I would love to see Chase, Zak, Austin, et al have a long and successful run! :-)).
Cheers;
DBC
Oops, I got confused (not the first time, won't be the last time)!
For some reason I thought that Zak Stebner was with the Blazers when in fact he is with the Rockets. Apologies to all! :-) (Naturally I would also love to see him go on a long and successful run as well, they are all good kids!).
Cheers;
DBC
really appreciate reading this stuff jon. You're a good guy. Don't let the haters get to you.
Let me start off by saying that I know no Latin, so I'm hardly qualified to speak here, but here is my view. Jon, homer or not, you have been great for this city and the club, and no one should argue otherwise. You are truly a great ambassador. As for the Blazers and GD, its sad that this pissing match has gone so public with no details. As such, we have very little to draw conclusions from. Almost ironic when you consider newspapers are intended to report details. In the end I hope more is revealed, allowing more educated arguments than what I have seen above and on other blogs. I will reserve judgment on everything until Monday, and give both parties the benefit of the doubt.
As for the homer comment, has anyone else listened to Shorthouse and Davidson broadcast Canuck games... Its enough to make a person sick!
Jon, keep up the good work. And others, grow up until Monday.
Post a Comment