Around The NHL Discussion 2018-2019

[Majorityof1]

You're talking about assumptions, but you're also making the assumption that those other people are only parroting what Mrs. Karlsson told them. You're even assuming they're all friends.

We know for a fact that there's a pattern of harassment by someone, because it's been documented and it's being investigated. We know that Mrs. Karlsson has (at the very least) reason to believe that it was Hoffman's significant other behind it. Believing that someone is capable of something like this, and bringing that belief to the public eye in spite of knowing the potential fallout, is not the sort of thing that's typically done lightly by people in this position.

We have a number of other people who were part of that team's wife community who are not surprised that this accusation has been levied, and nobody else (with firsthand knowledge or otherwise) has stepped up to defend the integrity of the accused beyond Hoffman himself. That's certainly not what we would expect if others generally had zero reason to believe this rather outrageous claim was possible. At the very least, we'd be hearing that people are "shocked" at the accusation.

We even have an insider who knew all about this situation multiple days before the motion was filed in the legal system, so clearly this didn't come out of nowhere.

This person might not be guilty of this specific allegation, but it takes a tremendous skeptic to believe that there's nothing at all to see here given the context and what we know, and I disagree that any potential employer should act like nothing happened until the investigation's concluded and the official verdict is out.

For example, even if we assume that Hoffman and his significant other have zero culpability here, the situation itself is clearly going to be a distraction that follows him wherever he goes until it's resolved. If it turns out that either or both actually did something stupid, it's going to be a huge problem for his next employer...especially since they brought him into the organization with this accusation hanging overhead.

Maybe those are judged to be acceptable risks and maybe they aren't, but it would be stupid not to weigh them before associating one's organization with this mess.

I am not making assumptions but listing hypotheticals that could lead to a different conclusion. I am agnostic as to who is telling the truth. I don't know and I don't really care. What bothers me is when the media and twitter-verse condemn someone without a fair trial and with very little information. There is a very important reason why our Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and too confront the witnesses against you. When one person can present all the evidence without any challenge to the veracity of that evidence, its very likely they will make a convincing argument.

From the evidence I have seen, we absolutely do NOT know for a fact that there is a pattern of harassment. There is a report of verbal insults, but not evidence. Then there are people saying mean things online. However, the complaint specifically says its from multiple anonymous online accounts. There is zero evidence in what I have seen that the same person is behind it, much less Hoffman's GF. So we don't know Mrs. Karlsson has reason to believe anything except people on the internet can be jerks. We know she claims to have good reason, but whether her alleged reasons are good has not been litigated, and no alternative argument has been presented. You would be surprised how often people make up accusations like that. It is a symptom of Histrionic personality disorder or borderline PD, really any of the class B PDs, to seek out attention through stories of abuse. From some accounts, 15% of the country have some type of personality disorder. So again, its not all that rare. I am not saying Mrs. Karlsson made anything up or has any type of disorder, only that its possible for people to make this stuff up to get attention, to shift blame or to alleviate difficult feelings. How often does someone tell the spouse of an co-worker repeatedly that she wishes her unborn child would die, and then that very thing happens? That also has to be extremely rare. Just because something is rare doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The people in the community have not been questioned for what basis they have to make those assumptions. They also might be biased based on their relationship with the accuser. The accused has not had an opportunity to present witnesses which may say the same thing. Her attorney probably told her not to litigate it in the media. The insider is completely irrelevant. He knew there was an issue. There would be an issue even if Ms Karlsson was making up the accusation or mistaken in her grief. The insider only knew there was an issue, not the true cause of the issue.

As to whether we should pursue Hoffman, that is something individual teams should weigh. But if you were a hiring director and interviewed the perfect candidate who was willing to take the job below his market value because some BS on the internet, would you not at least give him a chance to tell his side of the story and explain the situation before making your decision? If you dismiss him out of hand, you could potentially miss out on a great employee due to some BS on the internet.

 

[EastonBlues22]

From the evidence I have seen, we absolutely do NOT know for a fact that there is a pattern of harassment. There is a report of verbal insults, but not evidence. Then there are people saying mean things online. However, the complaint specifically says its from multiple anonymous online accounts. There is zero evidence in what I have seen that the same person is behind it, much less Hoffman's GF. So we don't know Mrs. Karlsson has reason to believe anything except people on the internet can be jerks. We know she claims to have good reason, but whether her alleged reasons are good has not been litigated, and no alternative argument has been presented. You would be surprised how often people make up accusations like that. It is a symptom of Histrionic personality disorder or borderline PD, really any of the class B PDs, to seek out attention through stories of abuse. From some accounts, 15% of the country have some type of personality disorder. So again, its not all that rare. I am not saying Mrs. Karlsson made anything up or has any type of disorder, only that its possible for people to make this stuff up to get attention, to shift blame or to alleviate difficult feelings. How often does someone tell the spouse of an co-worker repeatedly that she wishes her unborn child would die, and then that very thing happens? That also has to be extremely rare. Just because something is rare doesn't mean it didn't happen.

A pattern of harassment doesn't need to come from one person/account to be a pattern. There just needs to be pervasive, ongoing, harassment of a similar nature...which there is.

Beyond that, there are other responses that indicate that there was a more identifiable pattern (suggestive of one person repeating comments on a theme) as well.



EK posted on instagram in response to one of the comments: “How dare you. You have been making fake accounts and buying hacked ones for months to harass me and my wife but this is an all new low even for you. You are a disgusting person.”

People who have read these comments all (so far) seem to think there's a pattern, and honestly, it's not hard to pick out patterns in comments and tie them to someone when there's a dominant theme or repeated variations on a theme. Do you really need to read the name on the post to pick out something from Morty or Dizee for instance? Or even from me? Most of the time, I'm betting you don't...especially if it's a post on a topic we've discussed before, or that we're passionate about. That ability isn't proof in a court of law, but that doesn't mean it's something to dismiss out of hand, either.

I'm just generally commenting on this because I think it's interesting to talk about. I don't really think it's a critical topic given the misunderstanding you cleared up in the other thread.

As to whether we should pursue Hoffman, that is something individual teams should weigh. But if you were a hiring director and interviewed the perfect candidate who was willing to take the job below his market value because some BS on the internet, would you not at least give him a chance to tell his side of the story and explain the situation before making your decision? If you dismiss him out of hand, you could potentially miss out on a great employee due to some BS on the internet.

This isn't just some BS on the internet. There are actual investigations taking place, and the repulsiveness of the transgression (pervasive cyber-bullying of someone who lost a child) makes it a potentially toxic PR issue. Hoffman's significant other is smack in the middle of that until it's resolved, and so is he by association.

Best case scenario is that this is an ongoing distraction for the organization until it's resolved and Hoffman's significant other is cleared (or at least unable to be prosecuted). Worst case scenario is a conviction of the significant other with it coming out that Hoffman knew what was happening, perhaps even encouraging/participating himself. That would be a nightmare for a team to deal with.

If Hoffman says none of it is true, can you really afford to trust that given his obvious bias, not to mention his vested financial/professional interest in that being the case? Is he even in a position to know for sure what his significant other did or did not do?

It sucks that someone who potentially did nothing wrong might have this hanging over his head unfairly, but there's no way to know at the moment whether that's true or not. Regardless of what the truth ultimately is, there are currently real issues that Hoffman's employer must navigate that can't be ignored. There isn't an organization out there who is chomping at the bits to have their brand associated with someone who is allegedly cyber-bullying someone who had a stillborn child.

I don't know how that will affect Hoffman's stock around the league, but it seems unlikely that his current and future employers are thinking this whole thing is no big deal.

 

[Alklha]

There are enough scumbags out there that I wouldn't be surprised if the tweets weren't related to Hoffman's fiancée. However, it's quite clear that she must have done enough other things to make them think there is a decent chance it was her. That would be getting backed up by the comments from the partners of other players.

Does this impact the Senators abaility to move Hoffman? Absolutely. This isn't a player with locker room issues, this is a player who has a partner who has reportedly caused a major issue at his last team.

The hockey world is small. If there are reports of a player having issues with teammates or coaches, it's easy for a GM to call up his former coaches and former teammates and get a read on him. It's not difficult to make a trade dependent on talking to the player, and get a feel on what the issues are from his perspective. These aren't rare, GM's deal with these things.

The partner? What the hell can the GM do? He can't exactly get the partners of the current players together and demand they accept her. Keeping her apart from everyone isn't helpful. The player isn't likely to be happy is his partner is basically an outcast in a new city. And that is just assuming that she isn't going to directly cause issues.

 

[Majorityof1]

A pattern of harassment doesn't need to come from one person/account to be a pattern. There just needs to be pervasive, ongoing, harassment of a similar nature...which there is.

Beyond that, there are other responses that indicate that there was a more identifiable pattern (suggestive of one person repeating comments on a theme) as well.



EK posted on instagram in response to one of the comments: “How dare you. You have been making fake accounts and buying hacked ones for months to harass me and my wife but this is an all new low even for you. You are a disgusting person.”

People who have read these comments all (so far) seem to think there's a pattern, and honestly, it's not hard to pick out patterns in comments and tie them to someone when there's a dominant theme or repeated variations on a theme. Do you really need to read the name on the post to pick out something from Morty or Dizee for instance? Or even from me? Most of the time, I'm betting you don't...especially if it's a post on a topic we've discussed before, or that we're passionate about. That ability isn't proof in a court of law, but that doesn't mean it's something to dismiss out of hand, either.

I'm just generally commenting on this because I think it's interesting to talk about. I don't really think it's a critical topic given the misunderstanding you cleared up in the other thread.


This isn't just some BS on the internet. There are actual investigations taking place, and the repulsiveness of the transgression (pervasive cyber-bullying of someone who lost a child) makes it a potentially toxic PR issue. Hoffman's significant other is smack in the middle of that until it's resolved, and so is he by association.

Best case scenario is that this is an ongoing distraction for the organization until it's resolved and Hoffman's significant other is cleared (or at least unable to be prosecuted). Worst case scenario is a conviction of the significant other with it coming out that Hoffman knew what was happening, perhaps even encouraging/participating himself. That would be a nightmare for a team to deal with.

If Hoffman says none of it is true, can you really afford to trust that given his obvious bias, not to mention his vested financial/professional interest in that being the case? Is he even in a position to know for sure what his significant other did or did not do?

It sucks that someone who potentially did nothing wrong might have this hanging over his head unfairly, but there's no way to know at the moment whether that's true or not. Regardless of what the truth ultimately is, there are currently real issues that Hoffman's employer must navigate that can't be ignored. There isn't an organization out there who is chomping at the bits to have their brand associated with someone who is allegedly cyber-bullying someone who had a stillborn child.

I don't know how that will affect Hoffman's stock around the league, but it seems unlikely that his current and future employers are thinking this whole thing is no big deal.

Agreed on the interesting to talk about aspect. It obviously is a pet peeve of mine when people are litigated in the press and on the net with no ability to justify themselves. It is somewhat personal, as I have faced false accusations from someone on a much smaller scale. Thankfully it never rose to an investigation or internet discussion but it did affect some relationships I had. The threat of potentially facing worse consequences when I did absolutely nothing wrong, and was myself a victim, was sobering. Luckily I had very strong evidence of my innocence if it ever became an issue. Long story, short-ish, it was a bad break-up and my ex made up stories to justify the break-up and cover her bad behavior. She had a pattern of painting herself as a victim for sympathy, which I only noticed in retrospec butt was pervasive though all the stories she told me about her past. Eventually, I read about the personality disorders I mentioned in a different post and realized the described behavior fit her to a T. So I can sympathize with Hoffman in either outcome. Either how being falsely accused of something can effect you, or how easy it is to fall in love with a unstable person and be oblivious to their flaws.

In my case, when certain people started believing her and giving her sympathy, the accusations got more and more outlandish. A small group of people believed her to the extent they threatened and harassed me over it, which is how I knew about the stories. One time, I was in a group of friends and a friend of my ex was traveling in the same social circles. He didn't know me or that I knew her. In conversation, he asked me if I knew her, and then proceeded to tell me about this made-up account of things I never did, saying he saw the complained of activity first hand. If he actually saw it, he would have recognized me. When my friends called him on that, he admitted to not seeing it, but she told him about it and "she wouldn't lie". I had rock solid evidence on my phone, that when he got a chance to see it changed his mind. The point being, witnesses are far, far from infallible. Hoffman's side has not had a chance to present theirs. When the tide of online sentiment is against someone, its sometimes difficult to speak up on their behalf. Even if someone does, it often gets lost in a crowd of me toos.

From the stand-point of whether the organization should take a chance on him, as I said it depends. If his response when asked about it is simply "wasn't me (or her)", that is not good enough. But if he has a justification for why Mrs. EK would make the accusations, if he has evidence of some sort, then maybe I would. Lots of athletes are accused of much, much worse crimes and the organization gets through it just fine. What Hoffman's GF is accused of is heinous, don't get me wrong. But if true, which is worse, that Hoffman's GF was a cyber-bully or that Varlamov was accused of routinely beating and subjugating his girlfriend? Varlamov's case rose to criminal charges and arrest. The accounts from his then-GF were terrifying, yet the Avs stuck by him. When he got his ultimate day in court, he was acquitted. Had Colorado reacted based on one-side of the story they would have lost a good...decent....well they would have lost a goalie (story would have been much more poignant if he was a good goalie). Now I know the situation is different because Hoffman isn't on the Blues currently. But he also isn't the one under investigation. 3-4 months from now when the season starts, this could have all blown over, at least in the media. If we like what the player can do for us on the ice (which I am not a huge fan of), it is worth a little due diligence to learn more about the situation. You then have to weight the cost of the distraction vs the benefit of adding that player. To know the true cost, you have to know more of the story than is presented in the media. The media has an absolute incentive to portray one side as the victim and the other as a deranged person as it is much more salacious. On the other side, if you feel Hoffman is only a small improvement and other similar or better ones are available then yes, you should just move on.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

Poor Matt Duchene. Wonder how long it took for him to realize he walked into Melrose Place. Maybe he’s not hockey’s version of Pig Pen, soiling everything around him the minute he sets foot in town, after all.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Agreed on the interesting to talk about aspect. It obviously is a pet peeve of mine when people are litigated in the press and on the net with no ability to justify themselves. It is somewhat personal, as I have faced false accusations from someone on a much smaller scale. Thankfully it never rose to an investigation or internet discussion but it did affect some relationships I had. The threat of potentially facing worse consequences when I did absolutely nothing wrong, and was myself a victim, was sobering. Luckily I had very strong evidence of my innocence if it ever became an issue. Long story, short-ish, it was a bad break-up and my ex made up stories to justify the break-up and cover her bad behavior. She had a pattern of painting herself as a victim for sympathy, which I only noticed in retrospec butt was pervasive though all the stories she told me about her past. Eventually, I read about the personality disorders I mentioned in a different post and realized the described behavior fit her to a T. So I can sympathize with Hoffman in either outcome. Either how being falsely accused of something can effect you, or how easy it is to fall in love with a unstable person and be oblivious to their flaws.

In my case, when certain people started believing her and giving her sympathy, the accusations got more and more outlandish. A small group of people believed her to the extent they threatened and harassed me over it, which is how I knew about the stories. One time, I was in a group of friends and a friend of my ex was traveling in the same social circles. He didn't know me or that I knew her. In conversation, he asked me if I knew her, and then proceeded to tell me about this made-up account of things I never did, saying he saw the complained of activity first hand. If he actually saw it, he would have recognized me. When my friends called him on that, he admitted to not seeing it, but she told him about it and "she wouldn't lie". I had rock solid evidence on my phone, that when he got a chance to see it changed his mind. The point being, witnesses are far, far from infallible. Hoffman's side has not had a chance to present theirs. When the tide of online sentiment is against someone, its sometimes difficult to speak up on their behalf. Even if someone does, it often gets lost in a crowd of me toos.

From the stand-point of whether the organization should take a chance on him, as I said it depends. If his response when asked about it is simply "wasn't me (or her)", that is not good enough. But if he has a justification for why Mrs. EK would make the accusations, if he has evidence of some sort, then maybe I would. Lots of athletes are accused of much, much worse crimes and the organization gets through it just fine. What Hoffman's GF is accused of is heinous, don't get me wrong. But if true, which is worse, that Hoffman's GF was a cyber-bully or that Varlamov was accused of routinely beating and subjugating his girlfriend? Varlamov's case rose to criminal charges and arrest. The accounts from his then-GF were terrifying, yet the Avs stuck by him. When he got his ultimate day in court, he was acquitted. Had Colorado reacted based on one-side of the story they would have lost a good...decent....well they would have lost a goalie (story would have been much more poignant if he was a good goalie). Now I know the situation is different because Hoffman isn't on the Blues currently. But he also isn't the one under investigation. 3-4 months from now when the season starts, this could have all blown over, at least in the media. If we like what the player can do for us on the ice (which I am not a huge fan of), it is worth a little due diligence to learn more about the situation. You then have to weight the cost of the distraction vs the benefit of adding that player. To know the true cost, you have to know more of the story than is presented in the media. The media has an absolute incentive to portray one side as the victim and the other as a deranged person as it is much more salacious. On the other side, if you feel Hoffman is only a small improvement and other similar or better ones are available then yes, you should just move on.

I'm sorry you had to go through that. My watched my father go through something similar, though it was before the internet age. It wasn't fun, and he felt tainted by the experience even once the accusation was revealed to be fabricated. It took him a long time to get past that, and we never did associate with that group of people again.

Regardless of where the truth lies, this was a big bomb to drop and there's going to be fallout. Personally, I'm glad the Blues aren't involved.

 

[Kind Sir]

The Senators can't keep both players, and no way the dust clears on this before the draft.....which means Karlsson has to go, and the Sens have almost zero leverage in negotiations. I feel sorry, really sorry, for hockey fans in Ottowa.

 

[TruBlu]

Ottawa's owner doesn't seem to care. His top priority seems to be to drop salary.

 

[Alklha]

The Senators can't keep both players, and no way the dust clears on this before the draft.....which means Karlsson has to go, and the Sens have almost zero leverage in negotiations. I feel sorry, really sorry, for hockey fans in Ottowa.

Regardless of what happens with Karlsson, I'm not sure that there is any way that they can keep Hoffman without it being a problem.

 

[simon IC]

Gut feeling, but I think Karlsson is going to Nashville. I can see Poile being all over a guy like Karlsson.

 

[Ranksu]

Regardless of where the truth lies, this was a big bomb to drop and there's going to be fallout. Personally, I'm glad the Blues aren't involved.

 

[Thallis]

Gut feeling, but I think Karlsson is going to Nashville. I can see Poile being all over a guy like Karlsson.

No way they spend more money on their defense. If Karlsson is moving, I think he's vegas bound for sure.

 

[BlueDream]

Yeah Vegas needs to grab him. The rumored report is they almost had him at the deadline but didn’t want to give up Cody Glass...

They need to revisit that. Glass might be a solid prospect but cmon, it’s Erik Karlsson ffs.

 

[Dbrownss]

With William Karlsson going ham....they may feel they have their #1 center so glass may be movable. I'd still be shocked if Vegas repeats their success

 

[Stealth JD]

I know we just moved on from Shattenkirk because of salary considerations, but with the cap jumping ~$5M and the Blues having some salary coming off of the books, I'd not be opposed to Mike Green as our RHD-PP specialist, on the 3rd pair. He'd instantly replace some of that PP-production...and could probably be had on a 2 or 3 year deal for under $6M.

Hopefully in the next 2 or 3 years, the LHD in the system would catch up to the right side...but the power-play must be addressed, and that's a simple option that would only cost $$$.

 

[Ranksu]

I know we just moved on from Shattenkirk because of salary considerations, but with the cap jumping ~$5M and the Blues having some salary coming off of the books, I'd not be opposed to Mike Green as our RHD-PP specialist, on the 3rd pair. He'd instantly replace some of that PP-production...and could probably be had on a 2 or 3 year deal for under $6M.

Hopefully in the next 2 or 3 years, the LHD in the system would catch up to the right side...but the power-play must be addressed, and that's a simple option that would only cost $$$.

Schmaltz has potential to be right handed powerplay specialist at blueline and we can't forget Walman and Dunn is already guy who should play at 1st powerplay with Pietro. We don't need to add defenseman to our team who has ability to play powerplay.We need to develope our kids and we need to get rid off one of Jbo or Gunnar.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

Friedman says that Ottawa was trying to unload Hoffman in the days prior to the news breaking, with the price lowered significantly, and that teams aren’t happy about the way they go about business.

 

[Dbrownss]

Friedman says that Ottawa was trying to unload Hoffman in the days prior to the news breaking, with the price lowered significantly, and that teams aren’t happy about the way they go about business.

Ottawa being asshats....I'm shocked.


Seriously, this guy can be had for pennies

 

[Alklha]

Friedman says that Ottawa was trying to unload Hoffman in the days prior to the news breaking, with the price lowered significantly, and that teams aren’t happy about the way they go about business.

Wasn't Friedman saying a few days ago that there was lots of interest in Hoffman, but the price was high?

I understand the nature of the business when it comes to these insiders, they report what they hear and not everything is going to come off. Friedman is getting a lot of stick recently because he does like to somewhat frame his ideas as rumours. nity and they need to work with other GM's to do their job. Looking to get the best possible value

Ottawa being asshats....I'm shocked.

Seriously, this guy can be had for pennies

This makes what happened at the deadline hilarious now.

If Dorion had just listened to Karlsson and went ahead with the origional plan then they probably would have got a good return from Armstrong for him.

 

[Dbrownss]

Wasn't Friedman saying a few days ago that there was lots of interest in Hoffman, but the price was high?

I understand the nature of the business when it comes to these insiders, they report what they hear and not everything is going to come off. Friedman is getting a lot of stick recently because he does like to somewhat frame his ideas as rumours. nity and they need to work with other GM's to do their job. Looking to get the best possible value

This makes what happened at the deadline hilarious now.

If Dorion had just listened to Karlsson and went ahead with the origional plan then they probably would have got a good return from Armstrong for him.

I'd still like to know what DA offered, I'd guess 1st+B prospect+sobokta

 

[Alklha]

I'd still like to know what DA offered, I'd guess 1st+B prospect+sobokta

I'd love to know that as well.

My guess would be that the price was still high at that point. If they were looking for Thomas/Kyrou & Thompson/Kostin in January, they might have been willing to do the 1st & Thompson/Kostin at the deadline. As soon as we got the first, the ask changed to Thomas/Kyrou with it, or another + with Thompson/Kostin.

 

[Dbrownss]

I'd love to know that as well.

My guess would be that the price was still high at that point. If they were looking for Thomas/Kyrou & Thompson/Kostin in January, they might have been willing to do the 1st & Thompson/Kostin at the deadline. As soon as we got the first, the ask changed to Thomas/Kyrou with it, or another + with Thompson/Kostin.

That's what I figured too. No way he returns a 1st+ unless this situation is rapidly diffused. That team has absolutely crashed and burned

 

[BlueDream]

Friedman says that Ottawa was trying to unload Hoffman in the days prior to the news breaking, with the price lowered significantly, and that teams aren’t happy about the way they go about business.

Lmao I can just picture this happening and the red flags going up in GMs heads.

Armstrong: what’s the price for Hoffman?

Dorion: 1st, Fabbri and add Thomas on top of it

Armstrong: bye *hangs up*

*2 hours later*

Dorion: Doug please, we will take Blais and a 5th. I’m begging you

Armstrong: ....

 

[Itsnotatrap]

Garrioch talked to Hoffman and Caryk today

EXCLUSIVE: Hoffman, fiancée deny harassing the Karlssons

 

[BlueDream]

Good article. Reading that, I actually do feel a bit bad for Hoffman... his name is getting smeared when it’s very possible he could have had zero clue what his gf was doing (if she was actually doing it).

Based on what other people who know Monika have said, I have reason to believe that she must be a problem. But I’ve really yet to hear anyone that has said anything bad about Mike’s character.

As for him staying with her, I mean I know some really nice people in real life who have a crazy significant other, so I still won’t really judge him for that. Sometimes it can be a tricky situation to get rid of them.