Given recent events, should the Hawks be forced to surrender draft capital?

[Castle8130]

Hawks should be able to keep all their picks, but fined up the ass. I was thinking more like 100 million over the measly 2 million they received in fines. Or something that will give them a reason to change. I don't see why the hawks current players and future have to get punished for this action.

 

[Captain97]

Where's the option of I'd rather them receive a massive monetary fine and have if split up amongst the victims minus like 2-3% to cover legal/distribution costs of the NHL to distribute said money.

 

[MikeyMike01]

I voted no, because I don’t think that’s the right kind of punishment. Like giving community service for murder.

 

[NyQuil]

I think fines don't tend to really attract a lot of attention.

There are fines all the time in sports, for complaining publicly about refereeing to other issues.

I think a pick being taken away, among other punitive actions, will emphasize the seriousness of the situation and hopefully serve as some small deterrent to future cover-ups.

Not to mention, when it's their turn at the heavily televised draft, everyone will be reminded of this shitty situation.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

No. This is another HF-ism, where the perceived appropriate punishment for a real world transgression is hockey-centric. What the f*** do you think an up and coming young player is going to think about hearing this punishment? "Oh, the Hawks covered up an assault and now they don't get as good a draft position." No one outside of this website thinks like this.

 

[thestonedkoala]

No one outside of this website thinks like this.

You're right, no one thinks like that. But a lot of players may look at it and see that the NHL knee-capped the 'Hawks in terms of competitiveness. The 'Hawks are an aging team and they aren't as good as they once were. They are going to start needing better draft capital in order to compete. By removing draft picks - possibly high draft picks, this punishes the 'Hawks organization as they do not get playoff revenue, they are going to have to either overpay for free agents or hope they can dig out good prospects in the later rounds and players may avoid playing for them as they aren't competitive. It would also hurt attendance, because who wants to go see a terrible team? and may hurt them in terms of TV and media revenue as well.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

Coyotes lost picks first making athletes work out. Yea.

 

[Mike Jones]

I say yes. This is a lot more serious than what the Coyotes did.

But as someone has already said, losing picks should be one of many steps taken to bring this messed up situation towards some sense of resolution.

 

[North Cole]

If the NHL deemed Chayks running gym class was worthy of stripping them of their 1st, I see no reason why the Hawks should be able to keep theirs

I would say no and I think that losing picks would be even more ridiculed than the $2M fine. Casual hockey fans and prospective fans along with sponsors, couldn't give a rats ass about the draft position. They want to see real change, what does losing a 1st round pick do for society and abuse victims? That would be pretty tone-deaf punishment, and doesn't exactly make the NHL brand look good.

Bettman speaking about the Coyotes draft pick ruling - He had the option to fine them $250K per infraction or take picks:

"I exercise my discretion to impose the aforementioned discipline -- which I consider to be more appropriate given the specific circumstances of this case," Bettman said in a statement.​

It's not the same, because testing prospects in advance has ramifications within the draft itself, so it's more appropriate to take draft capital away, since that's the currency you were manipulating by utilizing advanced testing. The Hawks failure was all off-ice which did not impact the competitiveness of the game or the draft. Also, the Hawks haven't had repeated and publicized issues with money like Arizona has, and it also looks better for the league to take $1M of the $2M and give it to abuse charity, rather than "We took some 1st round picks" which does nothing for anyone. It's a different conversation whether you think the donation is well intentioned or just PR damage control, but undoubtedly it makes more a difference than forfeiting some picks.

 

[Neil Patrick Harris]

Not the same situation at all. If you don't understand the difference then don't participate in the conversation. If you want to make an argument that this is one of the only ways to punish the organization fine. But being unable to see that what Arizona did gave them an upper hand and what happened in Chicago had nothing to do with getting an advantage in drafting. Well thats on you.

Personally don't think any draft capital should be taken away. You're ultimately punishing the fans for something they had nothing to do with. The individuals responsible are going to get their due. Their lives are going to be ruined. I am not really sure why that's not enough. It's setting a precedent.

I'd actually like to hear one logical explanation how the current draft picks and sexual misconduct from over a decade ago are related.

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of drawing a relation between draft picks and the sexual misconduct so much as it's a question of how do you punish the team, and the front office in particular, for their inaction.

A big fine is something you can plaster in the news and make look like a big deal, but how does a fine actually affect the Blackhawks? It hurts the Wirtz's pocketbook, but any impact on hockey operations is tangential at best. And we're dealing with a report that was clear to state that there's no evidence that ownership had any knowledge of the allegations.

Taking away draft picks provides a tangible means for the NHL to punish the Chicago Blackhawks as a hockey franchise, in a way that can't be diminished by writing a big check. I'd argue it's one of the few weapons at their disposal in that regard, other than suspending staff or maybe cap penalties?

Which then goes back to my previous point - I think the NHL decided not to punish the Blackhawks in that fashion because they agreed to boot Bowman and MacIssac out the door. Rather than losing picks, the punishment was (essentially) losing their General Manager and Senior VP of Hockey Ops. With those figures purged, any further punishment would now be hurting the incumbent staff who joined after the incident and (presumably) had no idea it had occurred.

The NHL's next steps will be interesting, I think. If they really want to hammer home that this action is intolerable while not outright punishing the Hawks any further, I think the next step has to be suspensions from the league.

 

[ricky0034]

are you talking about the sex stuff or did I miss something else?

because I don't agree with linking draft picks to that at all and think there's a very clear line between something like that and what the Coyotes did which is the kind of thing that can actually give a team an unfair advantage in the draft

 

[triggrman]

No but anyone proven to be involved should have their names removed from the cup.

 

[Taluss]

Screw draft capital. Individuals need to be targeted here.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No. It was a criminal offense, not a hockey issue, and the people responsible have already been purged.

Focus the punishments on the responsible individuals, and future efforts on prevention. Kicking the current team with hockey-related punishments serves no purpose and arguably trivializes the nature of the offense.

 

[hamzarocks]

Should be fined more than 2M but taking draft picks doesn't make sense as the issue isn't a on ice hockey related issue.

See if there are any comparable offenses in other sports and look to apply a twice that amount to send a message.

Also the upper managment who were involved and didn't do their duties should be facing suspension without pay for atleast this season imo

 

[WetcoastOrca]

It would be ironic if Arizona lost a first for breaking the draft rules and the Hawks management, coaches and players got a slap on the wrist for covering up a rape. Two firsts should be forfeited at a minimum imo as this is far more serious and the penalty should reflect that.

 

[majormajor]

Arizona being penalized in draft picks made sense because they were trying to do something that gave them an unfair advantage in hockey.

 

[Ben Matlock]

Felt wrong to vote ”no penalty needed”, but draft picks in 2022- do seem completely unrelated to the offense. Future management, players and fans should not be punished.

If taking away draft picks is the only thing the league can think of, then skipping an entire draft year feels in line with the severity. But they should really focus the punishment elsewhere.

 

[CallMeShaft]

No, it doesn't have much to do with gaining a competitive advantage, so it doesn't make sense to take away picks. It's not like the Coyotes situation, even if it is worse.

The $2m they had to pay was a paltry amount, I agree. But I'll withhold judgement about how bad the organization's punishment is when the settlement is settled. It should be a huge figure and the Hawks have reportedly been watching their money a lot closer lately (beat writers have said the Hawks won't hire outside help to replace Colliton this season because of the $$$ for example), so it will have a bigger impact on the organization's future then some may think, but unlike draft picks, it'll actually benefit those wronged.

 

[Hatter of the Beach]

Not the same situation at all. If you don't understand the difference then don't participate in the conversation. If you want to make an argument that this is one of the only ways to punish the organization fine. But being unable to see that what Arizona did gave them an upper hand and what happened in Chicago had nothing to do with getting an advantage in drafting. Well thats on you.

Personally don't think any draft capital should be taken away. You're ultimately punishing the fans for something they had nothing to do with. The individuals responsible are going to get their due. Their lives are going to be ruined. I am not really sure why that's not enough. It's setting a precedent.

I'd actually like to hear one logical explanation how the current draft picks and sexual misconduct from over a decade ago are related.

Oh boy, where do I begin with this.

1) I never said the situations were the same as far as type of discretion, nor do they need to be. The reason the NHL levies penalties in a punitive nature is to try to reduce or eliminate the frequency of having them again. They do not need to be of the same nature, the only reason you think that is some arbitrary set of precedents that can, and in many people's opinions should, be changed given the severity and nature of new cases. Your line of thinking reeks of "do it because it's always been done this way" line of thinking, and has no real basis other than you being an unquestioning conformist to the status quo.

2) Your questionable comprehensive ability aside, people can participate in any conversation they want to on this site, provided they adhere to the rules. You sound like a self important tool. If you can't see that, well that's on you. Just as an fyi though, as soon as I read that, the voice in my head reading your post involuntarily changed to a lispy and incessantly whiny one. I imagine this is not an uncommon occurrence.

3) The logical explanation you seek is a fairly simple one, setting an example with punitive behavior. Holding them accountable in both aspects sets a stronger precedent against it and serves as a direct incentive to report it. It's not that hard of a concept for most people, as evidenced in the voting. Concerningly, it was for you however. May want to reflect on that shortstop.

 

[Hatter of the Beach]

. What the f*** do you think an up and coming young player is going to think about hearing this punishment? "Oh, the Hawks covered up an assault and now they don't get as good a draft position." .

Not every aspect of the punishment has to be focused on making things write on the victim's side. A large aspect of it can be to set as a precedent/warning for possible future occurrences. You bet your ass a GM will be more likely report it if you know it will make their job directly harder from an operational aspect. It's the exact reason why people in most western legal systems often serve jail time in addition to paying restitutions.

Your line of thinking is, quite frankly, childlike in its one note nature.

No, it doesn't have much to do with gaining a competitive advantage, so it doesn't make sense to take away picks. It's not like the Coyotes situation, even if it is worse.

The $2m they had to pay was a paltry amount, I agree. But I'll withhold judgement about how bad the organization's punishment is when the settlement is settled. It should be a huge figure and the Hawks have reportedly been watching their money a lot closer lately (beat writers have said the Hawks won't hire outside help to replace Colliton this season because of the $$$ for example), so it will have a bigger impact on the organization's future then some may think, but unlike draft picks, it'll actually benefit those wronged.

^ See above. Again, your line of thinking is based simply off already established precedent. The idea that this cannot be changed is dangerous.

 

[CallMeShaft]

Not every aspect of the punishment has to be focused on making things write on the victim's side. A large aspect of it can be to set as a precedent/warning for possible future occurrences. You bet your ass a GM will be more likely report it if you know it will make their job directly harder from an operational aspect. It's the exact reason why people in most western legal systems often serve jail time in addition to paying restitutions.

Your line of thinking is, quite frankly, childlike in its one note nature.



^ See above. Again, your line of thinking is based simply off already established precedent. The idea that this cannot be changed is dangerous.

I think a GM who gets caught in the middle of this won't be worrying about the draft picks they won't be making, seeing as they won't be there to make them because they will have already been fired and likely blacklisted from the league.

Do you think Bowman is worrying if the Hawks lose a 1st round pick? No, because his ass is gone. Your logic here doesn't make much sense.

 

[Hatter of the Beach]

I think a GM who gets caught in the middle of this won't be worrying about the draft picks they won't be making, seeing as they won't be there to make them because they will have already been fired and likely blacklisted from the league.

Do you think Bowman is worrying if the Hawks lose a 1st round pick? No, because his ass is gone. Your logic here doesn't make much sense.

You do realize contracts can have clauses instituting the need for backpay when there is a breach of contract, right?

Also, it opens up a far greater likelihood of there being a whistleblower looking to ascend.

Your inability to figure out the obvious inferences of the logic =/= non sensical.

 

[CallMeShaft]

You do realize contracts can have clauses instituting the need for backpay when there is a breach of contract, right?

What does this have to do with punishing a fired GM through use of taking away draft picks?

 

[Hatter of the Beach]

What does this have to do with punishing a fired GM through use of taking away draft picks?

....

Just forget it. I'm not a gifted enough educator to hold your hand through the obvious implications of what's being said if you really struggle with this.