Morehouse was brought in ten years ago, and was named President in 2007. People seem to think he just showed up overnight. I'd actually argue that we've actually been total media darlings since right about the time he was given his current post, and that it was only when Ray was fired that people got into a tizz.
I still don't know what the big deal is with this guy all of a sudden. I do know that we might not have gotten a new arena without him, or at least it would have been a hell of a lot tougher.
Fair enough. I would argue differently but both would be fruitless as they are left then to each of our personal interpretation as to when our public image began to change.
Either way, this does little to dispell my concerns about him, nor does it address the point I was asking for and that is cool as well. I'm not making a huge deal out of him and don't think it amounts to much of anything, but chose to throw out my thoughts on the subject because somebody chose to make a thread and I was kinda sick of rehashing the same ol same ol.
You're fine with him there and I'm a bit leery. And I seeboth sides as staking a valid claim.
I agree. Very well said. When did we become a "model organization"? We sucked in the early 2000's, drafted Crosby in 2005, were talks of moving the team to Kansas City in 2007, the same year Morehouse came in. So if we became a model organization in the Cup finals years, that was when Morehouse was president. I understand people see a dude with a career in politics and are skeptical, but there is a lot of assumptions being made without basis in fact.
It seems as if you are choosing to argue the semantics of the statement rather than the topic of the statement. Again, that would be a fruitless endeavor for the both of us as I'm sure that you know that I'm familiar with the teams history as well.
Take away the term which seems to disagree with you and the point still remains in its simplest of terms. We were greatly respected at one point. Now we are the opposite.
Correct me if I am wrong but I understand that as to fall under the branding category which he was in charge of.
And like Clefty, it seems that you're fine with DM which I don't find to be an indefensible position either. Yet it also seems that your basis for such is based on attacking those who don't agrees position as based on assumption or listening to rumors. That is just as faulty a position as one based on rumors because it is founded on the assumption that the concerns surrounding DM aren't genuine and you can't possibly know that they aren't for a fact. Nor can you possibly know if everyone is actually basing their opinions on assumption.
My reasons aren't founded on rumor. Or assumption. I have laid them out clearly in this thread.
Sure, I don't trust politicians right off the bat, but I don't blindly trust ANYONE right off the bat. I also worked in politics (like actual paid work for a California state senator...not the typical volunteer work) and was around quite a few during that time. And the ones that I met have been fun, smart and interesting guys who like to say what people like to hear rather than what they really mean a lot of the time.
That said, my views on DM are completely independent of that knowledge, or history.
Am I skeptical of him? Yeah, I am. Is it because he is a politician? Nope. It is because I am leery of the job he has done in shaping the public image of this team. Terms (buzz words) we've been spoon fed like "Penguins Hockey" are completely hollow and void of any substance or meaning. Fastest to 250 is great and all but the guy was still a train wreck as a coach. I dont trust stuff like that. I don't buy stuff like that. And yeah, stuff like that actually reeks of politico speak. Saying a lot without saying much of anything at all.
And again, I simply don't want a guy who has little to no background in hockey having any say in the on ice product.
Perhaps that is where you get that whole assumptions aspect. As in, I'm making assumptions about DM and his involvement with the hockey operations. I understand that. I have no idea how big or how small his say is...if any.
But again, independent of that is the branding. A job that I personally feel he has butchered. And nobody has said anything to convince me otherwise. I am more than willing to listen with a completely open mind and change said mind if a reasonable and logical counter is provided, but semantics or claims of assumption simply don't have enough influence to sway me.