Around The NHL Discussion 2020-21

[BadgersandBlues]

Honestly, this owner sounds exactly like the type of business man that succeeds in other ventures but then fails in sports for one main reason - visibility. No one cares when a banker is screwing another banker or a casino owner is screwing a vendor. But sports is different b/c there's such a demand for information and journalism. With so many reporters looking to find a story, it's only a matter of time before shady business practices come to light and generally puts a stop to them. This was a remarkably well researched article in a lot of ways, showing a specific pattern of behavior again and again - that of not honoring commitments, in both his current and prior businesses. I appreciate the above poster keeping an open mind, and that's what I try to do as well. There are clearly some questions I'd like to know - such as, how often after firing a senior person in the front office does litigation occur? Arbitration to the league?

At the end of the day, Bill Armstrong comes off looking like a moron at best, and a douche at worst. The owner comes off looking a lot like a lot of other business people who've made it big, generally by screwing someone else over in the process. B/c at the end of the day, if you're making so much money as to become a billionaire from basically nothing, it means your generating surplus value somewhere - generally that surplus value comes off the backs of other people.

 

[Blues0307]

The way this board is interpreting the article vs the Coyotes board is night and day. The Coyotes board seems happy to have Army in their organization and are glad someone is drawing a line in the sand. Too often there's a slant behind what is written or details are left out of a story, so I'm not willing to go off one article in disparaging Bill's character like some of you have.

 

[Note Worthy]

The way this board is interpreting the article vs the Coyotes board is night and day. The Coyotes board seems happy to have Army in their organization and are glad someone is drawing a line in the sand. Too often there's a slant behind what is written or details are left out of a story, so I'm not willing to go off one article in disparaging Bill's character like some of you have.

Unless Strang, a veteran reporter with a good reputation, is downright lying then I don't see how you can look at it any different.

For the sake of argument, even if you write off the stories told to her by former Yotes employees as embellished and they're disgruntled. She gives her own first hand account with Armstrong and it's not good. There's also no nuance there. Either he "asked this reporter what she thought would happen if he were to tell general managers around the league how she did her job" or he didn't. There's no nice way to put that or have it be misunderstood.

 

[Celtic Note]

Honestly, this owner sounds exactly like the type of business man that succeeds in other ventures but then fails in sports for one main reason - visibility. No one cares when a banker is screwing another banker or a casino owner is screwing a vendor. But sports is different b/c there's such a demand for information and journalism. With so many reporters looking to find a story, it's only a matter of time before shady business practices come to light and generally puts a stop to them. This was a remarkably well researched article in a lot of ways, showing a specific pattern of behavior again and again - that of not honoring commitments, in both his current and prior businesses. I appreciate the above poster keeping an open mind, and that's what I try to do as well. There are clearly some questions I'd like to know - such as, how often after firing a senior person in the front office does litigation occur? Arbitration to the league?

At the end of the day, Bill Armstrong comes off looking like a moron at best, and a douche at worst. The owner comes off looking a lot like a lot of other business people who've made it big, generally by screwing someone else over in the process. B/c at the end of the day, if you're making so much money as to become a billionaire from basically nothing, it means your generating surplus value somewhere - generally that surplus value comes off the backs of other people.

This type of owner is often celebrated in America for their achievements. Yet they pull these types of sleazy moves which get sidestepped because of the optics of success.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

The way this board is interpreting the article vs the Coyotes board is night and day. The Coyotes board seems happy to have Army in their organization and are glad someone is drawing a line in the sand. Too often there's a slant behind what is written or details are left out of a story, so I'm not willing to go off one article in disparaging Bill's character like some of you have.

I think that Bill Armstrong may have been defending this policy (do not share club information without approval) so vehemently, specifically over the draft rights debacle with Miller. Someone decided to draft him. That person is probably still with the team, and stands a good chance of a cyber lynching if they are named as the sole individual responsible. The entire episode is a disaster, but the front office may be trying to insulate and protect someone who made a mistake in the weird situation where the former GM was gone and the new GM wasn't able to be there to be responsible. Someone who isn't normally responsible for these calls made it.

I'm strongly suspecting that's where the policy is coming from, but maybe there's more to it. If my assumption is correct, we can debate the rightness of protecting that person's anonymity (as they've managed to do thus far, somewhat miraculously).

So the most sympathetic view I can take of Armstrong's behavior is that he was trying to keep a scandal from having a further casualty by enforcing this communication policy so strictly. His conversation with Katie Strang may have been ill-advised, may have been misunderstood. I still think he made a mistake there, but perhaps its not the policy itself that is the issue. On the other hand, if I want to take the least sympathetic view, I will conclude he's a controlling freak and he threatened a reporter, and its probably because of some yet-to-be-revealed next scandal (sexual harrassment?).

Its worth noting that DOUG Armstrong has a very tight ship in the public messaging department. He's built a culture where people do not talk to the media out of school. Trade rumors are not leaked from St Louis. I think its laudable, and the best way to run a professional organization. I never got the impression that he is draconian with people about the policy. We've certainly never heard that or of people fearing being fired over it. But he has put people in place that have bought in and respected that approach. My extremely strong suspicion is that Bill Armstrong is simply trying to duplicate that culture, and he's not been getting cooperation across the board. Frankly, maybe he DOES need to fire some people, and bring in a staff that is on the same page with him.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I canceled mine, then signed back up for the 1$/m special a week later. I’ll have another year before I have to decide again.

T-Mobile, 1-year free subscription. The cancellation date is marked in my phone.

Its worth noting that DOUG Armstrong has a very tight ship in the public messaging department. He's built a culture where people do not talk to the media out of school. Trade rumors are not leaked from St Louis. I think its laudable, and the best way to run a professional organization. I never got the impression that he is draconian with people about the policy. We've certainly never heard that or of people fearing being fired over it. But he has put people in place that have bought in and respected that approach. My extremely strong suspicion is that Bill Armstrong is simply trying to duplicate that culture, and he's not been getting cooperation across the board. Frankly, maybe he DOES need to fire some people, and bring in a staff that is on the same page with him.

The danger here is that the approach one person uses and for who it's very successful may not be replicable by others. That might be the case here. I doubt anyone has any idea how either organization is being run by their respective Armstrong, so speculating that they're both using the approach is mere speculation on my part or anyone else's.

It could be that the way two people say the same thing is interpreted differently by someone. I've had situations where I will say something in a way that I think is disarming, neutral and non-accusatory; one person hears it and thinks I'm being rude, another thinks I was practically milquetoast. I've had situations where someone is incredibly rude and short with me, and they think they've done nothing wrong and someone else wonders what the f*** their problem is. I'm sure BA's style is different from Chayka's and some people will be OK with it and some won't. Doesn't mean anyone is necessarily right or wrong, it's human nature, but you have to look at the pattern that plays out. If most of the people start giving you a consensus view of someone, you have to come up with really good reasons as to why that larger group might be wrong.

All that said, Strang has a documented history as a solid hockey journalist. She's got street cred, so to speak. If she says something happened, she's got a track record that gives her lots of credibility. Bill has however many years in hockey organizations, but he's got a few months as GM. He's got to build that cred himself, and doing it in an organization with a checkered history of being reliable and with an ownership group currently under scrutiny from this article isn't going to happen overnight.

 

[EastonBlues22]

It could be that the way two people say the same thing is interpreted differently by someone. I've had situations where I will say something in a way that I think is disarming, neutral and non-accusatory; one person hears it and thinks I'm being rude, another thinks I was practically milquetoast. I've had situations where someone is incredibly rude and short with me, and they think they've done nothing wrong and someone else wonders what the f*** their problem is.

You work in health care, too?

 

[Celtic Note]

You work in health care, too?

Sometimes (sticks tongue out)

 

[joe galiba]

I was reading through the Coyotes thread on this and it sure seems like her likely inside source was recently canned after Bill Armstrong had made not leaking inside stuff to outside sources a point of emphasis, and it seems like Bill Armstrong was pissed about the whole thing...so what?
if that is the entirety of their conversation (which we don’t know), I have zero problem with it
the boss’s son gets to work there..so? nothing new or unexpected there
a new ownership group cutting costs and renegotiating what they perceive as bad contracts by the prior ownership groups...well that actually seems responsible to me and the CEO even stated that is what they would do at a press conference when they bought the team
the rich owner has a big expensive house... stop the presses, I mean really?
it seems like the article was mostly a whole lot of nothing burgers just thrown together in a vaguely “look at all this bad stuff” kind of way and she doesn’t like Bill and he doesn’t like her

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You work in health care, too?

, since we don't have :spit:. Though, one of my past bosses was always I've been a lot of places, I've done these kinds of things before, I've seen these kinds of things happen so I wouldn't be surprised if he claimed he had worked in health care.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

a new ownership group cutting costs and renegotiating what they perceive as bad contracts by the prior ownership groups...well that actually seems responsible to me and the CEO even stated that is what they would do at a press conference when they bought the team
the rich owner has a big expensive house... stop the presses, I mean really?
it seems like the article was mostly a whole lot of nothing burgers just thrown together in a vaguely “look at all this bad stuff” kind of way and she doesn’t like Bill and he doesn’t like her

What I got out of it is that an owner who's made a fortune being cheap when dealing with business partners is doing some of the same stuff trying to run a pro sports franchise, and it bit them in the ass on a couple things.

I've got no problem with an ownership group coming in and trying to cut costs. Yeah, everyone thinks the prior group pissed away money and they know how to trim costs and generate profits. But then there's we had a service provided, got a bill and decided to drag our feet cutting a check and put the screws to the vendor and demanded they take some percentage of it. Yeah, businesses do that and (far too often) get away with it, especially when going up against small businesses who don't have the resources to fight and get what's rightfully theirs. There's screw those guys if they want food because they might be playing OT. Yes, you can do that, and the players are going to resent it and word's going to get out to other players and you're going to struggle to attract / keep guys. There's also screw these non-NHL prospects who are supposed to get bonuses like you're trying to screw a small business - which will not go over well because the NHLPA will go to bat for those guys and won't ever back down.

The reports of alleged sexual harassment? Well, people engaging in sexual harassment tend to go to great lengths to shut up victims and witnesses. If it's going on, the pattern of alleged behavior fits what I'd expect to see going on.

Is it possible she doesn't like Bill and he doesn't like her? Of course. Does that negate the validity of what she's reporting? Well, look elsewhere at other stuff being reported by others and ask yourself how likely it is that 3, 4, 5 or more people are all wrong and it's some giant conspiracy against the team.

 

[joe galiba]

manufacturers will guarantee prices to us and then attempt to raise them anyway
depending upon why (shortages, sudden raw material cost spikes, new CEO wanting higher margin, for example) and how it affects our customers we may or may not push back aggressively
we have customers that take jobs at cost and then come back to us wanting better prices, we have competition that will take jobs at cost then go back and squeeze the manufacturer, so it is not just a big guy shafting the little guy thing

the Coyotes have been a dysfunctional disaster for a long time
the new owners could be penny pinching penises with ears
or they could be forcing structure and responsibility upon an organization that has had neither for a long time leading to disgruntlement — or both could be equally true

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

T-Mobile, 1-year free subscription. The cancellation date is marked in my phone.


The danger here is that the approach one person uses and for who it's very successful may not be replicable by others. That might be the case here. I doubt anyone has any idea how either organization is being run by their respective Armstrong, so speculating that they're both using the approach is mere speculation on my part or anyone else's.

It could be that the way two people say the same thing is interpreted differently by someone. I've had situations where I will say something in a way that I think is disarming, neutral and non-accusatory; one person hears it and thinks I'm being rude, another thinks I was practically milquetoast. I've had situations where someone is incredibly rude and short with me, and they think they've done nothing wrong and someone else wonders what the f*** their problem is. I'm sure BA's style is different from Chayka's and some people will be OK with it and some won't. Doesn't mean anyone is necessarily right or wrong, it's human nature, but you have to look at the pattern that plays out. If most of the people start giving you a consensus view of someone, you have to come up with really good reasons as to why that larger group might be wrong.

All that said, Strang has a documented history as a solid hockey journalist. She's got street cred, so to speak. If she says something happened, she's got a track record that gives her lots of credibility. Bill has however many years in hockey organizations, but he's got a few months as GM. He's got to build that cred himself, and doing it in an organization with a checkered history of being reliable and with an ownership group currently under scrutiny from this article isn't going to happen overnight.

I see nothing wrong with imposing communication standards and discipline within a front office, and I don’t think it’s a particularly revolutionary concept either. The point is that he is coming from a place that functioned very successfully, and modeled that pattern well. And he’s entered a place that has been highly dysfunctional. It sounds like the phone call with Strang was ill-advised and clumsy at best. Definitely a mistake there.

 

[Blues0307]

Unless Strang, a veteran reporter with a good reputation, is downright lying then I don't see how you can look at it any different.

For the sake of argument, even if you write off the stories told to her by former Yotes employees as embellished and they're disgruntled. She gives her own first hand account with Armstrong and it's not good. There's also no nuance there. Either he "asked this reporter what she thought would happen if he were to tell general managers around the league how she did her job" or he didn't. There's no nice way to put that or have it be misunderstood.

If that's your tipping point, then so be it, but this is such a minor indiscretion to make a big deal about. Was it a mistake? Sure. Is it anything more than that? No. You're talking about a guy who's had a great reputation for years, who was always accommodating with the local media here, and who very well may be trying to change the culture of a losing organization. If he has to ruffle some feathers, so be it. Unless something significant comes out about him after this story, no one's going to remember what Bill said to Strang within a month.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I will say that Bill has had a long 5 months in the GM's seat already. He inherited the fallout of the Chayka prospect scandal (which will still be felt in this year's draft), couldn't participate in the draft, had to deal with the fallout of the team drafting Miller (including shifting from we back to the kid to we're relinquishing his rights), OEL wanting out and not being able to get a deal done before the season started, and now this on top of whatever else is going on. I'm going to guess his years as AGM didn't prepare him for any of that.

 

[Xerloris]

I will say that Bill has had a long 5 months in the GM's seat already. He inherited the fallout of the Chayka prospect scandal (which will still be felt in this year's draft), couldn't participate in the draft, had to deal with the fallout of the team drafting Miller (including shifting from we back to the kid to we're relinquishing his rights), OEL wanting out and not being able to get a deal done before the season started, and now this on top of whatever else is going on. I'm going to guess his years as AGM didn't prepare him for any of that.

OEL wouldn't wave his no-trade clause. That doesn't exactly sound like a guy wanting out to me.

 

[Thallis]

I will say that Bill has had a long 5 months in the GM's seat already. He inherited the fallout of the Chayka prospect scandal (which will still be felt in this year's draft), couldn't participate in the draft, had to deal with the fallout of the team drafting Miller (including shifting from we back to the kid to we're relinquishing his rights), OEL wanting out and not being able to get a deal done before the season started, and now this on top of whatever else is going on. I'm going to guess his years as AGM didn't prepare him for any of that.

Apparently Miller was marked as a "Do not draft" when Chayka was still around and it got taken off somehow after he left.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Apparently Miller was marked as a "Do not draft" when Chayka was still around and it got taken off somehow after he left.

When I read that, I found myself wondering if that was really true or part of the cover story now. If we get no answer about who was responsible for the decision to change the status, I am skeptical that we are getting a clear enough story to take that information as the simple truth. We have been told a piece of data meant to influence public perception perhaps.

 

[Thallis]

When I read that, I found myself wondering if that was really true or part of the cover story now. If we get no answer about who was responsible for the decision to change the status, I am skeptical that we are getting a clear enough story to take that information as the simple truth. We have been told a piece of data meant to influence public perception perhaps.

I don't see why it would be. Chayka would be an easy scapegoat for the org for the mess, the fact that they didn't take that out makes me inclined to believe it. Anything written in the article would have had to go through pretty intense legal scrutiny since the Athletic is small enough that a libel lawsuit would kill them, so it's pretty likely everything written is at least accurate factually.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

When I read that, I found myself wondering if that was really true or part of the cover story now.

When the story on Miller's past broke after the draft, that had been part of the original reporting. I want to say that didn't come from Strang.

OEL wouldn't wave his no-trade clause. That doesn't exactly sound like a guy wanting out to me.

I thought he was willing to waive it, but not to any of the teams Arizona could get a deal done with. Or, he wanted a trade and offered to waive it but only to a couple teams, then backed off at the last moment. But I'd have to go dig out the details on this, and right now I've got 67 other things I'm trying to juggle.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

OEL wouldn't wave his no-trade clause. That doesn't exactly sound like a guy wanting out to me.

I thought he was willing to waive it, but not to any of the teams Arizona could get a deal done with. Or, he wanted a trade and offered to waive it but only to a couple teams, then backed off at the last moment. But I'd have to go dig out the details on this, and right now I've got 67 other things I'm trying to juggle.

OEL was willing to waive for Boston or Vancouver, but also gave a deadline to be traded by, so Arizona ended up being unable to accommodate by the deadline, hence he's still there.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I don't see why it would be. Chayka would be an easy scapegoat for the org for the mess, the fact that they didn't take that out makes me inclined to believe it. Anything written in the article would have had to go through pretty intense legal scrutiny since the Athletic is small enough that a libel lawsuit would kill them, so it's pretty likely everything written is at least accurate factually.

I wasn't implying Strang made it up. I meant that maybe it was how Arizona told the story after the pick came under scrutiny, regardless of whether he actually was on their don't draft list. But I think your reasoning is better. It would have been more convenient to say that Chayka had cleared him and that he'd stayed on the list because of that. I conclude its probably the truth then, that he was off their list, then added during the interim.

 

[joe galiba]

My guess is that there were multiple draft lists floating around the organization as they were preparing, and when it was time to draft whoever was responsible after Chayka didn't have the correct version right in front of them
how they handled it after seems to be the problem, the organization didn't want to admit the mistake

 

[Ted Hoffman]

OEL was willing to waive for Boston or Vancouver, but also gave a deadline to be traded by, so Arizona ended up being unable to accommodate by the deadline, hence he's still there.

OK, that sounds like what I recall. So yeah, that was something Bill had to deal with even if it was "ignore it and tell OEL's agent to go pound sand" which, by all accounts, he didn't do because he was trying to work a deal and couldn't make it happen.

 

[ezcreepin]

We're about to play some pretty weak teams in SJ, LA, and ANA in the coming weeks. How many of you would rather see Parayko sit if it meant that Mikkola and Walman would be playing? I think Mikkola should be a regular no questions asked, but at this point I would rather take a much quicker and more healthy Walman than a debilitated Parayko. Berube has said that Krug can play and I'm assuming Scandella is just getting more rest because we can, so I'm not worried about getting them in too quickly. At least for now while we play bad teams.