The Hockey Rabbi

Bloggers, Journalists, "Tabloid Hockey Journalists"!?! And Everything In Between!

It's funny how things work.  The other day I had a nice telephone conversation with a fellow blogger.  We spoke about a number of different things including some "controversial" topics.  I told him that my philosophy in general is to try to avoid controversy.  That of course was before I read Tom Benjamin's excellent post and the phenomenal comments posted by his readers (including a number of other prominent bloggers). 

In his post, Tom talks about the apparently erroneous report appearing in The Globe and Mail last week which claimed that the Leafs were going to offer the legendary Scotty Bowman a job.  Tom then segues into his take on the "anonymous blogger" named Eklund.  Most of you have heard of Eklund and his site hockeybuzz.com.  Earlier this month, Greg Wyshynysky posted a very well received piece on Eklund.  For those who don't know who Eklund is, I highly recommend that you read Greg's article right now.  The article will give you a lot of the background information necessary to follow the rest of my post.   

Eklund is a phenomenon in the world of hockey: a huge number of people swear by him while a huge number of people swear at him!  Despite a number of requests from my readers, thus far I have totally abstained from the Eklund "debate".  Like I said, I'm not a big fan of controversy.  But something about Tom's article (and the subsequent comments posted on his thread) helped me realize that I can write about a controversial topic without having to be controversial.       

It seems as though a lot of bloggers disapprove of Eklund (to say the least) because much of his "reporting" proves to be inaccurate.  Many of his rumors never come to pass.  Ultimately, it's a credibility issue and many people doubt his credibility.  Since he is perceived as a blogger (his own site labels him as the "anonymous blogger", his apparent lack of credibility and the unbelievable exposure it gets reflects poorly on the rest of us (or so the argument goes).  To put it simply, many bloggers feel that Eklund is "bringing the rest of us down". 

Ultimately, the question is "what makes someone a blogger versus a 'reporter'?"  If Eklund can be considered a "reporter" his alleged lack of integrity would be a (seemingly bad) reflection on the mainstream media ("MSM") rather than on the blogosphere.  If, however, he truly is a blogger then perhaps his blogging critics have a legitimate gripe.  Or maybe there's another angle altogether. 

According to the Webster's Dictionary (on-line version), a blog is defined as follows:

"a Web site that contains an on-line personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer"

The MSM reports facts.  That's why journalistic integrity is so important.  When we read a typical news article (sports or otherwise) we have an expectation that what we're reading has been properly researched and is true to the best of the writer's knowledge.  Blogs, on the other hand, (typically) offer opinions, insights, comments, etc.. on those facts. 

Obviously, the lines have been blurred somewhat between bloggers and reporters: some bloggers focus more on "reporting" the facts (although not necessarily "breaking" stories) as opposed to giving opinions.  Similarly, some journalists offer a lot of opinions (not surprisingly, since these "journalists are blurring the lines" they often have their fair share of detractors,  Larry Brooks of the NY Post comes to mind).  Some blurring of the lines is to be expected.  In fact, I see it as a form of mutual admiration.  Bloggers respect and strive for the integrity that the vast majority of reporters in the MSM have.  Not surprisingly, we too try to "report" the facts accurately.  The MSM, on the other hand, can not help but recognize the success that many bloggers have achieved as a result of our unique, refreshing and novel approaches.  Each side tries to "borrow" a bit from the other.  To me that's all good.

Too much blurring of the lines, however, makes people uncomfortable.  I think that's why Eklund has caused such a stir.  On the one hand, many consider him to be a blogger, yet as far as I can tell he doesn't offer much in the way of opinions, insights or commentary.  On the other hand, by "reporting" stories he certainly has a lot in common with MSM journalists.  In general, bloggers don't "break" news or "report" rumors from "sources".  Bloggers will often comment on them and analyze them, but we don't (generally) "report" them. 

In my opinion (for whatever it's worth), Eklund is not a blogger.  All you have to do is read some of the other blogs on Eklund's site and you'll immediately notice the difference in style and content between the writing of those bloggers and Eklund's writing. 

The way I see it is that Eklund has become the National Enquirer of Hockey journalism, a tabloid hockey journalist!  Just like the tabloids, Eklund writes a gossip column with frequent references to anonymous sources who are allegedly close to the action.  Guess what?  I don't consider that to be an insult.  Eklund provides a service that is very much in demand.  My guess is that most of his readers take what he says with a grain of salt.  Most of his readers probably recognize that many of the rumors he promotes will never come to fruition.  Yet they flock to his site anyway.  Why?  Probably because the rumors he reports make for interesting conversation and/or thought.  Hockey fans love hockey.  Many of us are starved for it (especially in August!).  How many of us have spent hours talking to friends about "what if" scenarios and fantasy trades? 

I don't see how Eklund can "ruin" the reputation of bloggers:  he's simply not a blogger, or should I say "main stream blogger"?!?!  Similarly, I don't see how Eklund can ruin the reputation of the main stream journalists: he's not really one of them either.  Eklund is a phenomenon in the world of hockey, he's a tabloid hockey journalist.  As far as I can tell, the National Enquirer hasn't harmed the reputation of The New York Times "respectable" media outlets.  Whether your a "main stream blogger", "main stream journalist", a blogger with "journalistic" tendancies, a journalist with "bloggeristic" tendancies, etc.... I think we're all safe!!   

         

Same Old, Same Old From Avery?

Unfortunately it looks like a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same" with Sean Avery.  Prior to arriving in the Big Apple, the old Sean Avery managed to wear out his welcome everywhere he went.  Inevitably, his on-ice contributions were outweighed by his selfish and uncontrollable need to act out.  Sometimes he hurt his team by not knowing when to shut up.  Other times he put his team down a man (or two) by taking foolish and unnecessary penalties.  For Avery, it seemed as though the song always remained the same.  At the end of the day, he was always deemed a detriment: more trouble then he was worth.

In New York, however, things seemed different.  The new Sean Avery seemed to be making a real effort to focus and channel his "energy" into positive channels.  Avery seemed to immediately recognize his value to the team.  More importantly, he immediately embraced his role.  Not surprisingly, New York fans immediately embraced him.  That's what makes this most recent "controversy" all the more disappointing.

I'm willing to overlook Avery's childish comments before the Buffalo series (when Avery was quoted as saying he was going to "hurt" the Sabres).   

I'm willing to forgive him for his total disappearing act in that series as well. 

I'm even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for his decision to file for salary arbitration even though better and more valuable players were willing to negotiate with the team in order to ensure cap compliance and an opportunity to make a serious run for the cup.  Perhaps Sean didn't realize that an inflated arbitration award could disrupt the roster by forcing the Rangers to make a trade to accommodate his new salary.  I'm even willing to ignore the irony in the fact that the two Rangers (Avery and Hossa) who filed for arbitration share three very unflattering qualities:  (1) their characters have been questioned (for Hossa it's his overall commitment to excellence for Avery it his inability to control his self-centered childishness); (2) they both have unremarkable (to say the least!) track records (notwithstanding their late regular season production); and (3) they both have a heck of a lot to prove. 

What I can't overlook, however, is Avery's decision to "rock the boat" by negotiating/posturing through the media.  It creates a distraction.  The last thing a contender needs is a distraction.  Although it's still summer time, these things have a way of rippling into the season. 

Maybe I should be blaming the Rangers.  After all, they're the ones playing hard-ball.  Somehow, however, I can't blame management.  Arbitration is an adversarial proceeding.  What did Avery expect? a hug?!?  Avery chose to go this route.  Avery chose to ask for $2.6m despite having a very troubled past and only 20 solid regular season games on his resume.  Like it or not, everything the Rangers said about Avery is true. 

Maybe Avery didn't mean to "rock the boat".  Perhaps he's an emotional guy who wears his heart on his sleeve.  Maybe he just reflexively shot from the hip because of his shock and disappointment.  Well, if that were true it would just be more of the same from Avery.  Speak now, think later.  Unfortunately, however, I don't think that's true.  I think Avery is intentionally using the sympathy card for his own benefit.  He knows the fans love him.  He knows Slats will come under fire from the faithful for playing it tough.  Maybe management will fold and give him what he wants in order to avoid the negative publicity. 

What makes me think that Avery was "acting" rather than "re-acting"?  The Collective Bargaining Agreement, that's what.  The CBA outlines the rules and regulations of everything in the NHL.  Here's an interesting quote from Article 12 of the CBA which deals with salary arbitration proceedings:

"Publicity.

         The parties shall not publicize the substantive aspects
of any arbitration proceeding until the decision has been issued."

I'm not saying that Avery's comments to the New York Post violate the CBA.  The definitions section of the CBA does not define the term "substantive" as quoted above (although the Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition defines it as follows, "An essential part or constituent or relating to what is essential."   Did Avery leak an "essential part" of the Rangers argument?  That's a tough one (tongue firmly implanted in cheek!!).  What I am saying is that Avery knew or should have known about this rule.  His representatives must have prepared him for the do's and dont's of arbitration well in advance.  How else could he have made a well informed decision regarding whether or not to file for arbitration?  Avery must have thought about his comments before he made them.  He must have contemplated whether or not his comments would violate this provision of the CBA before he made them.  In all likelihood he consulted (on at least some level) with his agent(s) before crying to Larry Brooks. 

To me, this was not a case of an emotional guy reacting (without thought or premeditation) to the "shockingly" tough Ranger position.  I see it as a calculated and premeditated move:  Avery's trying to turn fan sympathy into dollars.  Totally unnecessary.  If the Rangers were willing to give Marcel Hossa a handsome raise they were certainly willing to do the same for Avery.  Slats is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them. 

In New York we want something new right now:  success.  Real Success.  In New York we want the Cup.  Right now the Rangers need the new Sean Avery, yet all we're getting at this point is the same old, same old from Mr. Avery.

For a great look at the Avery mess check out Dubi's article over at Blueshirt Bulletin. 

Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank my loyal and anonymous reader for sending me an e-mail this morning regarding the CBA provision quoted in this post.  Thanks for the angle!         

                        

      

Avery's Getting Emotional

Kudos to Larry Brooks and the New York Post for quenching our thirst for Rangers news!  The latest comes from the Sean Avery arbitration saga:

As part of the arbitration proceeding, both sides must submit briefs in support of their respective positions.  Avery's camp will be submitting a brief which seeks an arbitration award of $2.6m for the season.    According to Brooks, the Rangers are seeking an arbitration award of $1.3m.  The Rangers' brief reportedly labels Avery as "a reasonably effective player as well as a detriment to the team," (Emphasis added).  Avery is quoted as saying, "It's hard not to take something like that personally and not to be emotional about it...I know this is part of the business, I know this is part of the process, but it's extremely disappointing to read something like that coming from Slats [GM Glen Sather] and not to be offended by it."   

What exactly makes Avery a "detriment" to the team in the eyes of management is left unclear.  One thing is for sure, however, Brooks certainly disagrees with the Rangers' approach: "No one could possibly think Avery was a detriment to the Rangers. That's careless and inaccurate terminology Sather is employing in his bid to win the salary arbitration case. The fact is that after acquiring Avery from the Kings on Feb. 5, the Blueshirts went 17-6-6 with him in the lineup, adding a jagged edge to a team that had been way too smooth for its own good the first four months of the season."

I happen to agree with Brooks, sort of!  Unless there are behind the scenes issues with Avery that we are not aware of, it's hard to argue with Avery's value to the team.  The team underwent a positive metamorphosis after acquiring the hard nosed and pesky forward.  He brought an attitude and swagger to Broadway that was sorely lacking.  Additionally, his 20 points in 29 regular season games can not be overlooked.

On the other hand, he disappeared in the playoffs when it counted.  Against the Thrashers, the whole team looked invincible.  In round two, however, Avery was invisible.  In fact, Avery acknowledged as much after the Rangers were eliminated from the post season. 

To me, this is the bottom line:  throughout his career, Avery has struggled to find his place.  His big mouth and over the top antics have inevitably led his employers to feel that he is more trouble then he's worth.  Upon coming to Broadway he seems to have found a home.  But let's not get carried away with ourselves.  Avery has a lot to prove.  20 games do not a career make!  As far as I'm concerned, his disappearing act in the playoffs was as noteworthy as his regular season revival.   

In the article, Avery says "at the end of the season, my hope was to sign a long-term deal."   Sean, what makes you think you deserve a long term deal at this point in your career?  L.A. dumped the guy for nothing.  If the Rangers sign the kid to a long term deal and then he reverts to his old ways, what are we left with?  An untradeable cap charge. 

The Bottom Line:  The Rangers need Sean Avery.  Period.  Perhaps the teams approach in labeling him a "detriment" was misguided (Spector speculates that this unpleasant experience may lead Avery to test the UFA market next season).  I would have preferred to see Slats use arguments similar to those presented above.  However, I do not blame the Rangers for taking a tough approach here.  Avery has a lot to prove.  The good news is that Avery is still very much committed to the team, "The arbitration hasn't changed my opinion at all about wanting to be a Ranger and being excited about this season," Avery said. "I'm really high on the team. I just wish Slats hadn't said these things about me. That's hard to take."   

Perhaps Avery recognizes that New York is the ideal location for him at this point in his career.  Perhaps he recognizes that the solid veteran leadership found in the locker room will help him mature and grow as a player AND as a person.  Perhaps Sean Avery will prove what he has to prove in New York.  Nothing would make me happier.