dedalus
Registered User
Saskin didn't do well for lots of reasons.
1. He opens by saying he felt compelled to call in to offer "a point of view that's a little more informed." He ends up saying he wouldn't "lower [himself] to get into a debate."
Well which is it, Ted? Are you calling in to refute Fischler or not?
2. His points boiled down to an opinion/insult ("Stan Fischler is uninformed") and an assertion for which he offers absolutely no proof (a "well over a majority" of owners wanted to take the offer). He did nothing more than repeat these two items, and theat ain't offering much.
3. He implies that Bettman was somehow awful for using his supermajority powers (powers that were granted him by the owners themselves), but then refuses to answer Fischler when Fischler asks him why the players weren't allowed to vote. Furthermore, he has the temerity to say that "there was nothing put forward to the players that would attract any attention for us to put through a vote [his emphasis]."
Who's to say there was nothing of interest, Ted? You? Isn't that exactly WHY you're supposed to put through a vote?
C'mon, Ted, if you're not going to even let your guys VOTE on a proposal, you can't whine because Bettman used the very authority the owners gave him.
I agree that Fischler sounded like a crotchety old man, but Saskin came off as a weasel and a coward to boot. His attacks were personal where Fischler's were directed at the PA leadership's job performance.
All told you'd have to say that Goodenow did a far better job with Russo than Saskin did here. Guess that's why Ted is a lackey and Bob is the guy in charge.
1. He opens by saying he felt compelled to call in to offer "a point of view that's a little more informed." He ends up saying he wouldn't "lower [himself] to get into a debate."
Well which is it, Ted? Are you calling in to refute Fischler or not?
2. His points boiled down to an opinion/insult ("Stan Fischler is uninformed") and an assertion for which he offers absolutely no proof (a "well over a majority" of owners wanted to take the offer). He did nothing more than repeat these two items, and theat ain't offering much.
3. He implies that Bettman was somehow awful for using his supermajority powers (powers that were granted him by the owners themselves), but then refuses to answer Fischler when Fischler asks him why the players weren't allowed to vote. Furthermore, he has the temerity to say that "there was nothing put forward to the players that would attract any attention for us to put through a vote [his emphasis]."
Who's to say there was nothing of interest, Ted? You? Isn't that exactly WHY you're supposed to put through a vote?
C'mon, Ted, if you're not going to even let your guys VOTE on a proposal, you can't whine because Bettman used the very authority the owners gave him.
I agree that Fischler sounded like a crotchety old man, but Saskin came off as a weasel and a coward to boot. His attacks were personal where Fischler's were directed at the PA leadership's job performance.
All told you'd have to say that Goodenow did a far better job with Russo than Saskin did here. Guess that's why Ted is a lackey and Bob is the guy in charge.
Last edited: