Phil Kessel

[Brystine]

If I was a player picking based on city.. I'd probably pick San Jose or Anaheim. Detroit, Toronto, Dallas, St. Louis, LA would be at the bottom of my list.

I missed it earlier but the idea of Anaheim at the top and LA at the bottom is hi-larious. I mean, unless you're the world's biggest theme park fan.

Seriously. It's basically like saying Mississauga is at the top of your list, but Toronto . . . no thanks.

I wouldn't put either of those cities at the top.

 

[ZBBM]

You can't suspend (or bargain away) basic rights within an artificial world you've created, contract or no contract.

Sure you can. Courts have held up the idea of confidentiality and non-compete clauses despite those being abrogations of one's "right to free speech".

When the NHL puts the requirements for media availability into the SPC they're saying that making time to answer the media's questions is a part of Phil Kessel's job and the fines are for not doing his job. If Phil Kessel is a capable and competent adult when he enters into the contract, he's agreeing to fulfill the terms of his contract. His "right" to not talk to the media should be exercised by not signing the contract, not deciding to skip out on one of his responsibilities.

I don't think the two situations are even remotely comparable but you have to remember, Curt Flood lost.

Not at all the same.  What the NHL is trying to compel is having players talk on (presumably) an unlimited range of subjects.  There are many specialized restrictions on freedom of speech built into the law (no yelling "Fire" in a theater etc.), but generalized speech is not one of them.  Like I said, if someone challenged it I bet they would prevail.

And busta, as you know the NHL's meaning of "make available" is  "talk to the media in a substantive way," not just stand there silently while they ask questions, or just saying "no comment."  The NHL wouldn't like that any better -- in fact they would think it's worse -- than just avoiding the scrum.

 

[Kin]

Not at all the same.

No. But you said that you can't enter into a contract wherein your "rights" in a broader sense are denied to you. Those are two examples of how you absolutely can.

  What the NHL is trying to compel is having players talk on (presumably) an unlimited range of subjects.

No, they're just compelling them to be available to answer media questions. They're free to answer in bland meaningless cliches as they do in, oh, 99.9% of all interviews athletes give. Greg Popovich is a great example in the NBA of how "media availability" means basically nothing. One word answers will do.

C'mon, man. You think that these leagues, almost all of whom at this point are run by lawyers to say nothing of the lawyers on their payroll, would put something into a standard player's contract that was the slam-dunk violation of constitutional freedoms you think it is?

 

[Kin]

I'd feel safer and more at home in Anaheim. Plus, look what growing up in LA did to Gretzky's daughter. Perhaps that's just what American culture turns women into, but still.. It's probably more evident in LA.

No, good point. Who ever heard of anything other than paragons of moral virtue coming out of Orange County?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I love how the media has turned the Leafs first playoff appearance in 9 years into a story about themselves.

Whatever, takes the talk off the team's inexperience.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The Cox and diManno stories were two of the dumbest articles I've read in a long time.  League "rules" or not, Kessel has no obligation to talk to anybody like a trained parrot.  You simply cannot force anyone in a free society to talk if they don't want to.  The NHL doesn't get to suspend legislated freedom of speech (which includes the right to remain silent), still less does the media have any "right" to demand someone give them an interview.  It's patently ridiculous.

Then, to cap it off, there's this Coxian gem:

Look, I?m not trying to bury Kessel here. I have no particular interest in hearing what he has to say. I know he has nothing to say.

This after spending about 10 paragraphs doing his best to bury Phil Kessel.

And in fact, Cox is right: Kessel has nothing of interest whatsoever to say.  And he never will.  Yet Cox and his media comrades STILL want to extract useless quotes from him so that they can produce ... well, just another useless column.

Cox and diManno can dismount from their high horses any time now.

Well Cox had Kessel basically traded when he didn't score in the first bunch of games, so not surprising.

There are certain reporters and posters (not you, for the record) who, despite back-to-back seasons at PPG or in the top 10 in scoring, cannot bring themselves to praise much about his game at all.

 

[Kin]

I love how the media has turned the Leafs first playoff appearance in 9 years into a story about themselves.

But it's not. This was Kessel's choice and the story now is all about Kessel. To me, that's why Kessel's behaviour isn't just selfish but ultimately self-defeating. By making this choice he's made his actions the big story and drawn a ton of media attention towards him.

 

[TML fan]

I love how the media has turned the Leafs first playoff appearance in 9 years into a story about themselves.

But it's not. This was Kessel's choice and the story now is all about Kessel. To me, that's why Kessel's behaviour isn't just selfish but ultimately self-defeating. By making this choice he's made his actions the big story and drawn a ton of media attention towards him.

He could have answered their inane and pointless questions about the trade and why he doesn't score against Boston, and then it's all about that. He does this and now it's all about this. It's a lose lose situation. The media just wants to poke at him. Either way, it was always only going to be about Kessel.

 

[Kin]

He could have answered their inane and pointless questions about the trade and why he doesn't score against Boston, and then it's all about that. He does this and now it's all about this. It's a lose lose situation. The media just wants to poke at him. Either way, it was always only going to be about Kessel.

Yeah, right, because lord knows "Kessel answers reporters questions blandly" at this point in his career would be quite the scoop.

 

[Deebo]

I'm sorry if I missed it posted, but what do NHL rules say with respect to media availability?

Is he obligated to make himself available? If so, when? After games? After practice?

 

[Peter D.]

I didn't understand the depth of this story until I started reading it on here and now in the papers, and listening to it on the radio.

This conjures a huge "who cares...leave the guy alone already" response from me.  I don't care what he has to say to the media and what obligation they feel he has to them.  Just do all the talking on the ice.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Haha just saw the video of Rosie DiManno waiting around for Kessel in her Sex Pistols shirt. I'm dying.  Gotta be punk rawk to write your articles mocking sex assault.

 

[ZBBM]

What I said was "The NHL doesn't get to suspend legislated freedom of speech."

C'mon, man. You think that these leagues, almost all of whom at this point are run by lawyers to say nothing of the lawyers on their payroll, would put something into a standard player's contract that was the slam-dunk violation of constitutional freedoms you think it is?

Until it's challenged, they'll write the contract the way the NHL wants them to.

 

[PG]

I love how the media has turned the Leafs first playoff appearance in 9 years into a story about themselves.

But it's not. This was Kessel's choice and the story now is all about Kessel. To me, that's why Kessel's behaviour isn't just selfish but ultimately self-defeating. By making this choice he's made his actions the big story and drawn a ton of media attention towards him.

He could have answered their inane and pointless questions about the trade and why he doesn't score against Boston, and then it's all about that. He does this and now it's all about this. It's a lose lose situation. The media just wants to poke at him. Either way, it was always only going to be about Kessel.

I disagree. If he just answered their stupid questions, they will eventually go away. The team has a slew of PR people that would be more than happy to spend time with him coaching him on dealing with the media. He doesn't have to say anything thought-provoking or interesting.

The media was going to rip him for a bad series regardless, but now he gave them a little bit more oomph if he doesn't perform.

 

[Kin]

I didn't understand the depth of this story until I started reading it on here and now in the papers, and listening to it on the radio.

This conjures a huge "who cares...leave the guy alone already" response from me.  I don't care what he has to say to the media and what obligation they feel he has to them.  Just do all the talking on the ice.

The issue isn't the obligation Phil Kessel has to the media, it's the obligation he has to the Leafs.

 

[bustaheims]

And busta, as you know the NHL's meaning of "make available" is  "talk to the media in a substantive way," not just stand there silently while they ask questions, or just saying "no comment."  The NHL wouldn't like that any better -- in fact they would think it's worse -- than just avoiding the scrum.

They make not like it, but it would absolutely satisfy the requirements of Kessel's contract. He may look stupid doing so, but that's his right. He just has to be willing to meet with them and let them ask him questions. He's under no obligation to answer.

 

[oakl0008]

Well he just met with the media today. I don't have a video of the link, but here's a quote:


"Nothing changes, right? We're going to have to go in there. They're a great team. We're gonna have to battle" - Phil Kessel.

There. They have what they need. He fulfilled his "obligation". Feel better now?

 

[Kin]

What I said was "The NHL doesn't get to suspend legislated freedom of speech."

The quote of yours I was responding to was:

You can't suspend (or bargain away) basic rights within an artificial world you've created, contract or no contract.

Which you, again, absolutely can. Another example would be random drug testing which, if the government did it, would be a pretty clear violation of your 4th amendment rights but has been repeatedly upheld as something a private company can do in contract with their employees.

Until it's challenged, they'll write the contract the way the NHL wants them to.

So why would the NHL want to put something in their SPC that wouldn't survive a lawsuit? Why wouldn't they double and triple check that they were in bounds before they wrote up their Media Access policy? I'm sorry man but you don't have a leg to stand on here.

 

[Rick C.]

The issue isn't the obligation Phil Kessel has to the media, it's the obligation he has to the Leafs.

The Leafs organization has a responsibility to protect their assets.  If they don't want him getting banged up in a barrage of questions by the media, they'll not let media get to him.  I remember when I was covering the Leafs, there were many nights that Felix Potvin didn't want to speak to any media.

Maybe Kessel only wants to speak to female media members

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I love how the media has turned the Leafs first playoff appearance in 9 years into a story about themselves.

But it's not. This was Kessel's choice and the story now is all about Kessel. To me, that's why Kessel's behaviour isn't just selfish but ultimately self-defeating. By making this choice he's made his actions the big story and drawn a ton of media attention towards him.

He could have answered their inane and pointless questions about the trade and why he doesn't score against Boston, and then it's all about that. He does this and now it's all about this. It's a lose lose situation. The media just wants to poke at him. Either way, it was always only going to be about Kessel.

I disagree. If he just answered their stupid questions, they will eventually go away. The team has a slew of PR people that would be more than happy to spend time with him coaching him on dealing with the media. He doesn't have to say anything thought-provoking or interesting.

The media was going to rip him for a bad series regardless, but now he gave them a little bit more oomph if he doesn't perform.

The media won't go away.  When has the media in Toronto ever gone away?  This series in the media was going to be about him on the ice vs. Boston regardless of whether he talked or didn't talk.  I doubt he cares if there's a little more 'oomph', he hasn't seemed to care about what the media has said this far.  If it hasn't affected him so far, I highly doubt it will now.  Non-story and non-issue.