This thread went about as well as could be expected.
Berkshire et al.: “Hyman was able to play on high-level teams when he was young that others can’t afford.”
Everyone: “Yes.”
Berkshire et al.: “Hockey is expensive, it needs to change!”
Everyone: “We know.”
Berkshire et al. “No one is capable of nuanced thought! The media is hiding this from us!”
The advantage that Hyman got was that his parents could afford to put him where he had the ability to play. So many kids won’t have that opportunity. I’ve seen virtually no one deny that. This isn’t new, this isn’t a media narrative (“lying by omission”, Berkshire said) and it’s not some big shock to everyone.
If Berkshire really wanted to pretend this is a “conversation we need to have”, why bring it up the second a specific NHL player scores his 50th goal? He calls himself “hockey media”, so where was his big piece on this any other time within the last 25 years, when hockey has gotten out of reach for many families?
He opened his mouth to release his ridiculous thoughts singling out one player, and they were promptly replaced by the boots of fans and legit hockey media.
Instead of doing that, and then tripling down on the nonsense, maybe he could have not piggybacked off someone’s incredible achievement, and said “hey, hockey is expensive - here’s how some of the NHL players with more modest beginnings got started”. And then offer some suggestions on how we can help reduce the costs of ice time, equipment, tournaments, travel, etc. for minor hockey in Canada.
Much more effective than offering a fact that everyone already knows, accusing the media of lying, and rebuking everyone with “you don’t understand what I’m saying”, when everyone knows exactly what he’s trying to say.