Manitoba Moose

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Not sure what gang you are referring to.  I guess I'm not hip to the Winnipeg scene anymore.  But I used to go to Warrior games in the 1980's, before they moved to Moose Jaw.  Here was their logo:

Not sure it would have been acceptable in this new enlightened day and age.  There also was a Warrior team from 1955-1961.

Maybe Im of the right age that the first thing I think of when I hear Warriors is the street gang (that I dont think is around anymore).  So I could be entirely wrong that the gang connection would be off-putting.  But either way, it would wade into some cultural stuff.  That could be a net positive but they'd have to deal with it appropriately.

As Rich pointed out, and we've heard Chipman say, he only wanted to go with Jets if there was a real connection to Winnipeg other then it being named after the New York football team.  Chipman was involved as a junior member of the Save the Jets movement but I dont get the impression he was emotionally in love with the name.  I DO get the impression Bettman felt it was sort of a no-brainer as he mentioned several times that True North could have the name and logos with no issue (which would be an odd thing to say if TN preferred to go in a different direction).

I think the media really picked up on the emotional connection of the fans to the Jets name and made the effort to push that narrative.  Who can forget Thomson being asked about it and replying "Jets is a fine name".  That practically sealed it in the minds of many people even if it was just the smart answer by a smart guy.

[kelownabomberfan]

25 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

That practically sealed it in the minds of many people even if it was just the smart answer by a smart guy.

Amazing how smart you are when you have a super-rich grandpa and dad. 

But yeah, I think you nailed it.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Then there is this generation of Warriors.

Edited December 4, 2017 by FrostyWinnipeg

[SPuDS]

12 hours ago, Goalie said:

As for Hutch hes supposed to be a pro.. Most of us would give our left nut to make what these guys make in 1 year. 

He needs to suck it up and talk.. Its part of being a pro. Pav sulked... Hutch is doing the same. 

at the end of the day, who the hell really cares if he doesn't feel like talking to the media?  I don't.. he keeps winning, he can throw batteries at them for all I care.

[SPuDS]

3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Does one have to skate to have an opinion or knowledge on hockey?

No but it really does help and lend some validity to your positions.. If you've lived it, its easier to relate.

[Noeller]

13 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

No but it really does help and lend some validity to your positions.. If you've lived it, its easier to relate.

One's opinion doesn't mean **** if you've never been there. People can have a lot of knowledge about hockey by watching it, but you'll never know as much as someone who's been in the room and played the game. 

[The Unknown Poster]

9 minutes ago, Noeller said:

One's opinion doesn't mean **** if you've never been there. People can have a lot of knowledge about hockey by watching it, but you'll never know as much as someone who's been in the room and played the game. 

Nah, the "you've never been there" excuse is lame.  And its an insult to journalists, many of whom get assigned to areas they never worked before.  I certainly agree that working in a certain profession or sport can provide a certain insight, but to imply a person simply doesnt have a clue is just wrong.  And in general my point was a tongue in cheek response to someone who is very often critical who used a silly and pointless reply in the first place that didnt actually make much sense in the context.

[Jimmy Pop]

 

[Noeller]

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Nah, the "you've never been there" excuse is lame.  And its an insult to journalists, many of whom get assigned to areas they never worked before.  I certainly agree that working in a certain profession or sport can provide a certain insight, but to imply a person simply doesnt have a clue is just wrong.  And in general my point was a tongue in cheek response to someone who is very often critical who used a silly and pointless reply in the first place that didnt actually make much sense in the context.

I should have phrased it better.....one's opinion is always worth something......it's just that an opinion based only on watching/studying isn't worth AS MUCH as the opinion that comes from experience in the room and in the game. Journalists know lots, but the least ignorant among them will be the first to tell you that they'll never know as much as someone who's been there. You'd never get it from the arrogant asshats in Toronto, but a guy like Elliot Friedman will always defer to Kelly Hrudey, just as an example...

[The Unknown Poster]

6 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I should have phrased it better.....one's opinion is always worth something......it's just that an opinion based only on watching/studying isn't worth AS MUCH as the opinion that comes from experience in the room and in the game. Journalists know lots, but the least ignorant among them will be the first to tell you that they'll never know as much as someone who's been there. You'd never get it from the arrogant asshats in Toronto, but a guy like Elliot Friedman will always defer to Kelly Hrudey, just as an example...

I can agree with that.  But Elliot is a good example of a guy, I have no idea what level of hockey he ever played, but when he speaks I listen.  He is respected.  Maybe because he defers to others in a respectful way.  For our purposes, the vast majority of us have no pro hockey experience so we're all of similar experience and insight levels.  

The original point about speculation concerning the return of the Jets was funny because while there was a lot of rampant and incorrect rumors, there were nuggets of truth there too.  So to pretend people had lousy insight because they werent in the room is just silly.  I remember the day someone connected the dots about David Thomson and how that speculation was actually deleted from message boards because "it was too close to the truth".  Well, that just made it more interesting. Oh and true too!  That was a good one by whatever fat basement dweller figured it out. 

[Noeller]

9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I can agree with that.  But Elliot is a good example of a guy, I have no idea what level of hockey he ever played, but when he speaks I listen.  He is respected.  Maybe because he defers to others in a respectful way.  For our purposes, the vast majority of us have no pro hockey experience so we're all of similar experience and insight levels.  

The original point about speculation concerning the return of the Jets was funny because while there was a lot of rampant and incorrect rumors, there were nuggets of truth there too.  So to pretend people had lousy insight because they werent in the room is just silly.  I remember the day someone connected the dots about David Thomson and how that speculation was actually deleted from message boards because "it was too close to the truth".  Well, that just made it more interesting. Oh and true too!  That was a good one by whatever fat basement dweller figured it out. 

and I think there's a difference between being an insider, with knowledge of the "business" of hockey (Friedman) and being an analyst of the game, which is where you always defer to people who played it. All of this sexist nonsense about Cassie Campbell not doing Flames games because she's married to the AGM......I don't give two shits who she's married to, or that she's a woman.......my only issue with her ever, has been that she never played NHL hockey, and  there should never be a pro hockey analyst that never played in the NHL.......just as an example of needing that specific insight.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, Noeller said:

and I think there's a difference between being an insider, with knowledge of the "business" of hockey (Friedman) and being an analyst of the game, which is where you always defer to people who played it. All of this sexist nonsense about Cassie Campbell not doing Flames games because she's married to the AGM......I don't give two shits who she's married to, or that she's a woman.......my only issue with her ever, has been that she never played NHL hockey, and  there should never be a pro hockey analyst that never played in the NHL.......just as an example of needing that specific insight.

Im not sure I agree about Cassie.  I heard her once and never gave it a second thought (which is good).  But she played hockey at a high level so does playing high level hockey matter less than playing hockey with the letters NHL?  I think calling the action on the ice, she's perfectly able to.  I didnt notice any point she made where I could argue she doesnt know what she's talking about because NHL hockey is fundamentally different from Olympic level hockey.   Maybe if I heard her more often it would bother me, but in that role, I certainly respect her talent and accomplishments at hockey, which is the sport she calls when doing Flames games.

 

[Noeller]

33 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Im not sure I agree about Cassie.  I heard her once and never gave it a second thought (which is good).  But she played hockey at a high level so does playing high level hockey matter less than playing hockey with the letters NHL?  I think calling the action on the ice, she's perfectly able to.  I didnt notice any point she made where I could argue she doesnt know what she's talking about because NHL hockey is fundamentally different from Olympic level hockey.   Maybe if I heard her more often it would bother me, but in that role, I certainly respect her talent and accomplishments at hockey, which is the sport she calls when doing Flames games.

 

Yes......very very much. Also, not sure I agree about women's hockey being a high level WHEN COMPARED TO NHL (felt that needed to be clarified...)

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

and I think there's a difference between being an insider, with knowledge of the "business" of hockey (Friedman) and being an analyst of the game, which is where you always defer to people who played it. All of this sexist nonsense about Cassie Campbell not doing Flames games because she's married to the AGM......I don't give two shits who she's married to, or that she's a woman.......my only issue with her ever, has been that she never played NHL hockey, and  there should never be a pro hockey analyst that never played in the NHL.......just as an example of needing that specific insight.

It's the CBC though so to be "progressive" they have to have a woman on at least one CBC Hockey broadcast.  By your parameters the only woman qualified would be Manon Rheaume, (sort of) who by the way I am still very much in love with.  So anyway, if we have to have a woman on the CBC doing hockey broadcasts (and to be fair, lots of girls play hockey now, so why the hell not?) then Cassie is about as good as it gets in my opinion.

[sweep the leg]

I'll take Cassie Campbell over Greg Millen and especially Garry Galley.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

37 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

It's the CBC though so to be "progressive" they have to have a woman on at least one CBC Hockey broadcast.  By your parameters the only woman qualified would be Manon Rheaume, (sort of) who by the way I am still very much in love with.  So anyway, if we have to have a woman on the CBC doing hockey broadcasts (and to be fair, lots of girls play hockey now, so why the hell not?) then Cassie is about as good as it gets in my opinion.

Is it not Sportsnet hockey and CBC is just rebroadcasting it?

As for Manon...'ockey is my life!

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by FrostyWinnipeg

[sweep the leg]

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

Yes......very very much. Also, not sure I agree about women's hockey being a high level WHEN COMPARED TO NHL (felt that needed to be clarified...)

Meh, I don't think it matters that much. By high level, I take that to mean the importance of the games and the amount of pressure she's played under. Her experience in the Olympics and WC covers that aspect.

 

[sweep the leg]

9 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

If anyone here has played higher than Midget male hockey (age 15), they've played at a higher competitive level than Cassie.

https://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/news/2009-nwt-007-en

 

Midget is 16-17. AAA midget is good hockey, and that article says the women won more than they lost. Their level of hockey is better than people give them credit for.

[kelownabomberfan]

6 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

Midget is 16-17. AAA midget is good hockey, and that article says the women won more than they lost. Their level of hockey is better than people give them credit for.

I will agree with this totally.  I really enjoy watching them at the Olympics.

[Rich]

Pruned a bunch of posts here, please refrain from insults and attacks.  Been happening too often around here lately.

[17to85]

Cassie Campbell is a terrible commentator and it has nothing to do with her gender or how high a level of hockey she did or did not play, she is just horrible. She never says anything even close to insightful and she's about as exciting as dry toast to listen to. It's monotone cliches and bland forced excitement. 

She has that gig solely because someone in a high up position decided they needed a woman in the position. She's just so bad at the job. 

[kelownabomberfan]

47 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Cassie Campbell is a terrible commentator and it has nothing to do with her gender or how high a level of hockey she did or did not play, she is just horrible. She never says anything even close to insightful and she's about as exciting as dry toast to listen to. It's monotone cliches and bland forced excitement. 

She has that gig solely because someone in a high up position decided they needed a woman in the position. She's just so bad at the job. 

ok I'm not going anywhere near this one.  I will say that at first I didn't get it, but she's grown on me a lot.  Also, given there are a lot of girls playing hockey now, and watching hockey, I don't see why they can't have a voice of a female commentator on at least one broadcast a week.  Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age...

[Goalie]

49 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Cassie Campbell is a terrible commentator and it has nothing to do with her gender or how high a level of hockey she did or did not play, she is just horrible. She never says anything even close to insightful and she's about as exciting as dry toast to listen to. It's monotone cliches and bland forced excitement. 

She has that gig solely because someone in a high up position decided they needed a woman in the position. She's just so bad at the job. 

I actually agree with this. 100 percent. 

[Noeller]

It has absolutely ZERO to do with being female.....she's just flat out awful.

[17to85]

15 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

ok I'm not going anywhere near this one.  I will say that at first I didn't get it, but she's grown on me a lot.  Also, given there are a lot of girls playing hockey now, and watching hockey, I don't see why they can't have a voice of a female commentator on at least one broadcast a week.  Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age...

Oh there's nothing wrong with having a woman doing the job, but for fucks sake hire one that can do the job well! You can't tell me there isn't a better option out there somewhere, or maybe even send her for some kind of training if we have to suffer through her. I just can't stand her commentary because it is just totally empty and devoid of anything worth listening to.