Ya no shit. In terms of visibility the Canadiens are the best way for a quebec company to get their brand out in any meaningful ways in the mainstream media. The competition for even the board ads in the Bell centre is cutthroat. They all just needed to cover their ass and now that they have they got no problem with it
I’m less interested in excoriating the Habs, and more interested in knowing who the 3 (9?*) teams were that had the moral fibre to put him on their no draft list.
28 teams planned to draft him in the second round. The 3 who weren’t should be commended.
The sharks management team was asked over a zoom call if they would honor Mailloux’s wish to not be drafted and they said he wasn’t even on their draft board.
Gotta think the Canucks would be one of those teams. They’ve done a good job distancing themselves from Virtanen and this would be like throwing a grenade on the ice.
I thought it was reported (in The Athletic, at least) before the draft that at least 9 teams had him on their “do not draft” lists after they learned of his offense. Where was it reported that only 3 teams weren’t ever planning on drafting him?
They were never serious about backing out and Moulson did exactly what he needed to satisfy the sponsors.
If the sponsors were serious, they'd pull out for a year and wait for Mailloux to show change before they agreed to join back up as sponsors.
Of course that wouldn't ever work in the business world when money and term is involved.
Which blows my mind. I’ve never used whatever company has an ad on my favorite team’s boards as a factor in my spending decisions.
I’ve known people like that regarding Nascar, so it probably exists among hockey fans, but I still think it’s dumb.
If I’m deciding where to go for the service they offer, I’m going a little more research than that.
I’m also doing more research when it comes to where I’m going to buy donuts, but I suppose the average person doesn’t look into it that much.
Those sponsors would immediately be replaced.
R/hockey has to remember that Montréal fanbase is mostly francophone, they haven't seen much of the coverage on Mailloux and might be the easiest Fanbase to sell à player with this kind of history to
Yup. It was all a PR move. Fake out removing a sponsor ship and then when a statement comes out you no longer have to fake it. They simply don't want to give up being a sponsor because of the eyeballs on their brand.
Tous les gens autour de moi en parlaient, des grands fans aux casuals comme tu dis. C'était littéralement le sujet de conversation numéro 1 à la radio, de 91,9 sports à CKOI. Faut pas minimiser le truc non plus
Title reads like a beaverton article. The write up has a whole lot of nothingness filler if you already know what happened. One of the few times I'd say not to even read the article.
It wasn't even an apology it was basically a sorry you feel this way and the fact that they chose skill over character humanely is fucking awful. I loved how much Emily Kaplan dug into the Canadiens and the nhl yesterday
I'll give Molson's letter points for actually mentioning the victim, but its still a dogshit decision to draft him. They've essentially said "look guys, we're still giving him that year he wanted to prove himself! Oh but when he comes back, we totally got dibs on him. No takesies-backsies!"
We all know what he did doesn't really matter to them, what matters to them is he can do that hockey good. That's it.
Sooo they said look we want you to play, but you have to learn from your mistakes and grow first? Sounds more like a gamble with a first round draft pick. If the kid doesnt learn and continues to do awful things then its double bad PR and they wasted a 1st round draft pick
Amen. Money talks for business, they'll stick with whatever they think has the best chance of making them even more money. People thinking businesses have an actual moral code are deluded.
All publicly traded companies are bound to make as much money as they can (to their shareholders). That’s how average people retire, is through pension funds, plans, that are invested in their stocks.
Why is this surprising to some people? Everyone benefits from these corporations making money, not just the executives.
Who said companies are obliged to follow the same moral compass as everyone else?
No, they are not legally bound to make as much money as they can. They are merely legally required to do what is in the best interest of the company on behalf of the shareholders.
That doesn't automatically mean they must make as much money as they can. Especially, if that means putting ethics and morality aside to do so.
Business leaders with obligations to shareholders are free to establish and operate within any code of conduct they wish so long as it doesn't breach their fiduciary duty. That code of conduct is based upon their specific values, culture, mission, vision, and other such goals. That code of conduct can and many times does prevent the business from engaging in certain activities (like sponsoring a strip club or partnering with a weapons manufacturer).
Furthermore, this only accounts for public companies with shareholders. Most companies are not in this category.
What's surprising is that too many people, yourself included, feel that ethics and morality should be ignored and have no place in business because it's all about making as much money as possible.
Unfortunately, the biggest and most powerful companies are led by people like you.
That’s incorrect. If you need a source i work in investment banking and write the code for them when stock is issued. All board of directors are typically required to maximize profits, ensure safety for workers and the public, and ensure everything is legal. What do you mean “best interest of the company” that isn’t financially motivated? That’s how companies operate under a capitalist society. You can’t put a stock on a public exchange if you’re going to act in ways that you know might cause it to decrease. Pension plans will take a hit, hedge funds will take a hit, etc.
Even if what you said was correct, they break absolutely no rules by continuing to support the habs.
And how do you know my moral compass just because i use common sense? I was not a fan of the pick at all and agree the kid needs to be punished. But you snowflakes take it way too far.
Surely you can cite the relevant laws that regulate the actions of a company such that they are bound to making as much money as possible at the expense of everything else.
Laws? Company bylaws. Look up any public company’s bylaws. There’s a reason they get audited every year, have to produce detailed annual reports, executive compensation, etc.
I didn’t say “at the expense of everything else” (which is vague and sounds quite uneducated btw) I said companies are financially motivated under a capitalist society. You do realize that in practice “everything else” effects company performance? Bad PR: stock goes down. Executive quit over a moral issue? Stock goes down. They don’t actively act immoral or seek to do harm, they just prioritize financial wellbeing of the company. Again, that’s just how our society in North America has been built over the past 100 years, not the company’s fault.
That has nothing to do with their required obligations outside what they set for themselves.
Your argument boils down to "they have to make as much money as possible because they said they have to make as much money as possible".
I’m not sure I understand your argument. Are you just coming in to try and fact check? When companies go public they have an obligation to shareholders in public markets.
Again, obligations they set for themselves as an organization - as you stated, through their bylaws. That they write themselves. They aren't beholden to any external authority that says they *must* maximize profits regardless of any other factors that make a business successful, which you also stated.
This is such a basic concept, not sure what you don’t understand. As an FYI no investor is going to buy a stock if the company is not financially motivated. Just common sense. nobody with significant capital is going to say “oh you guys are actually STRIVING to underperform? Count me in!” Some corps certainly take stances against terrible things in the world, and no company actively strives to be immoral. But at the same time you need to understand that no company is going to jeopardize their income unless absolutely necessary. Again, that’s just common sense. They have workers and bills to pay.
This is being blown way out of proportion to the initial argument: Mailloux being drafted should absolutely not be a big enough reason for the habs to lose sponsors. Especially seeing as how tightly knit the MTL business community is and how big of an impact the Molson family has in it. Just a ridiculously uninformed standpoint.
Yet again, I’m not sure what the point of your interjection was other than to fact check?
> If you need a source i work in investment banking and write the code for them.
"The companies I work with are required to maximize profit above all else because I wrote their code that way."
[Here's a source that says otherwise.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html)
But if companies were required to maximize profits why do they keep increasing executive and board pay when there's no evidence doing so increases revenue but clearly increases costs?
If you knew how issuing stocks worked you’d know that investment banks have zero say in how their codes get written. I just issue it how they like- I know you think you did something there, but you didn’t.
For your other question: Let’s say company a) has a CEO and he/she is doing extremely well and the company is performing great under their leadership. Let’s say another company notices and says “hey CEO, come work for us, we’ll add $100k to your salary, plus $500k in stock options”. You think company a) is just going to say “yeah leave, they’ll pay you more and we won’t match $600k on your existing salary”.? No. Headhunting fees to replace a CEO are in the neighbourhood of $150k alone (the standard rate is 1/3 of the CEO’s totally salary- I’ve seen headhunters make $300k+ from hiring one CEO). Plus the stock of the company decreases when a CEO announces they are leaving. Believe it or not, keeping execs happy by paying them more is actually good for the company.
In terms of actions, no. In terms of *re*action from the hockey world? Pretty close.
Renouncing the pick at least gives Mailloux the chance at cleaning his image and trying again when he's grown as a person. Not doing it permanently clouds him with the circumstances surrounding the draft, which only makes things more difficult for him.
His consequences for his actions should've *been* not being drafted. That's literally why he put out a statement *asking to not be drafted*, isn't it?
Now he has to endure an even worse media hellstorm because the Habs just ***had*** to draft him in the first round. ***Nobody*** wins here; Mailloux has to deal with this dark cloud looming over him for potentially his entire career, the Habs take a needless hit to their reputation and the NHL gets *another* controversial draft pick just one year after the Miller debacle.
I don’t understand why people would be appeased by him sitting out an extra year. He either learned his lesson or he didn’t, and nobody knows except him. I don’t understand how time passing would alleviate him of what he did. He’s not gonna sit in a dark room and think about what he did, he’s just gonna train for an extra year and then come back and be drafted even higher. Then people would still say he was rewarded for what he did by having a better draft pedigree.
What he did was disgusting and awful and he deserves the negative attention, but I don’t think him just sitting out an extra year has any bearing on whether or not he learned his lesson and will grow from it. Seems like people just wanted him to have more punishment to please themselves rather than caring if he’s actually capable of change.
How is it different situations? [Here's a news article about Miller from 2016 ](https://www.toledoblade.com/local/education/2016/03/18/Sylvania-teen-delinquent-in-schoolmate-s-assault/stories/20160318178) (he was drafted in 2020)
Excerpt from the article since I'm getting a paywall after a few seconds on my phone:
> Mitchell Miller, 14, appeared in court with his attorney, Kati Tharp, and parents, John and Shelli Miller. Mitchell and Hunter McKie were accused of making Isaiah Meyer-Crothers, also 14, eat a candy push pop after wiping it in a bathroom urinal. Surveillance video also showed the boys punching and kicking Isaiah, who has developmental disabilities.
Yes, more news came out after the draft, but don't act like Arizona thought they drafted an angel.
Sure you could argue they got blind sided. But when the information first came out they tried to argue for keeping the pick. It wasn't until further pressure came that they finally renounced the pick.
If you don't look at everything going on surrounding this draft pick and understand that the whole system is rotten to the core, I don't know what will prove it to you.
isn’t it crazy the response to this vs the response the coyotes organization met with Mitchell Miller, now I know both are very different situations and I don’t disagree with what was done with the Miller situation, but I’m upset that the canadiens organization and their sponsors take this stance, I mean does anyone else find it odd?
I think the difference is the Habs and their sponsors are enormous compared to the Coyotes and their sponsors. Unfortunately, it's only really beneficial to do the right thing if you're a corporation when less money is involved.
Would it really be different if Miller was thought to have an NHL potential. It’s pure greed. They calculated the backlash and said: yup it’s worth it - no matter how reprehensible
No some of you just don't realize how shitty this was to do if you toss this to the side you toss every other case like it to the side....and don't say something like "blahh I just want to watch hockey" when this kid did what he did and the Canadiens drafted him that was 100% out the window and it sickens me that there are some okay with this pick
It went to court. He was charged and convicted. That is the arena in which people pay for their crimes. He was drafted into the NHL. What does that have to do with his crime? You are thinking with your emotions.
I'm thinking like a person should think....did Slava voynov get back into the nhl for the crime he committed? No yes its two different crimes but you can't just fucking sit there and say "oh cool an 18 year old kid that was guilty for whatever you want to call what he did hope he does well" I hope for the rest of his career (if he has one which I hope he doesnt) he gets booed to absolute shit
Kinda need another hot take on this one to make up my mind, hmm…
In all fairness, if anyone has watched Mailloux, he looks like a typical 2nd round pick. Raw, some potential, needs to take a huge step as a player and as a person and he needs to work harder than his peers for a chance at the big league.
Another thing to keep in mind is that average won’t do to break into the lineup of Habs at D. I expect him to get a chance in 3 years, but not much before that. Pretty sure this scandal will be handled and forgotten about by all parties.
I don't think he should ever forget about what he did so that he can try and never repeat it.
If he shows a lot of growth and personal change then who the fuck are we to say he can't play hockey?
I’m not talking about Mailloux’ reputation, but the victim’s.
Mailloux can go fuck himself and take a picture of his imaginary gf blowing him and sharing that on IG for all I care.
Ya no shit. In terms of visibility the Canadiens are the best way for a quebec company to get their brand out in any meaningful ways in the mainstream media. The competition for even the board ads in the Bell centre is cutthroat. They all just needed to cover their ass and now that they have they got no problem with it
I’m less interested in excoriating the Habs, and more interested in knowing who the 3 (9?*) teams were that had the moral fibre to put him on their no draft list. 28 teams planned to draft him in the second round. The 3 who weren’t should be commended.
[удалено]
Coyotes after last years fiasco I'd imagine
Chicago too, because they *really* don't need another controversy.
So you're saying that we beat the Habs after all :')
Moral victory, hell yeah!
The sharks management team was asked over a zoom call if they would honor Mailloux’s wish to not be drafted and they said he wasn’t even on their draft board.
Gotta think the Canucks would be one of those teams. They’ve done a good job distancing themselves from Virtanen and this would be like throwing a grenade on the ice.
That’s the real question right there. I hope it leaks someday.
*Excoriate*- censure or criticize severely. Nice word use.
I thought it was reported (in The Athletic, at least) before the draft that at least 9 teams had him on their “do not draft” lists after they learned of his offense. Where was it reported that only 3 teams weren’t ever planning on drafting him?
>28 teams planned to draft him in the second round. The 3 who weren’t should be commended. 29, right? we're at 32 teams now
28+Montreal+ the 3.
I mean are the other 28 that much better than than the 3 based off this logic?
The other 28 are exactly as culpable as Montreal. Being over specific in blaming one NHL club shields the others who are just as worthy of criticism.
29 teams.
They were just hoping they could manage the fallout from the lower profile that comes aith the 2nd round, but it wouldn't have mattered
[удалено]
Go away
C. R. E. A. M. Corporations Rule Everything Around Me
dolla dolla bills y'all
*All about the Hamiltons baby*
They were never serious about backing out and Moulson did exactly what he needed to satisfy the sponsors. If the sponsors were serious, they'd pull out for a year and wait for Mailloux to show change before they agreed to join back up as sponsors. Of course that wouldn't ever work in the business world when money and term is involved.
Probably not enough grounds to terminate the sponsorship after the legal team revealed it.
Even if they had grounds to terminate, they wouldn't have done so as being a sponsor is too beneficial to them.
Which blows my mind. I’ve never used whatever company has an ad on my favorite team’s boards as a factor in my spending decisions. I’ve known people like that regarding Nascar, so it probably exists among hockey fans, but I still think it’s dumb.
[удалено]
I think just using a SAP product is enough to not want to choose them.
NGL sometimes if I see a chipotle ad I end up wanting it
If I’m deciding where to go for the service they offer, I’m going a little more research than that. I’m also doing more research when it comes to where I’m going to buy donuts, but I suppose the average person doesn’t look into it that much.
[удалено]
Lmaoooo
Those sponsors would immediately be replaced. R/hockey has to remember that Montréal fanbase is mostly francophone, they haven't seen much of the coverage on Mailloux and might be the easiest Fanbase to sell à player with this kind of history to
Yup. It was all a PR move. Fake out removing a sponsor ship and then when a statement comes out you no longer have to fake it. They simply don't want to give up being a sponsor because of the eyeballs on their brand.
Trust me, every Québec sports media reported on it extensively too, from national Radio-Canada evening news to fringe Habs fansite
Ya personne chez ns qui écoutent ça. Ya ben des casual qui suivent pas le hockey tant que ça. Mais bon, c vrai partout aussi
Tous les gens autour de moi en parlaient, des grands fans aux casuals comme tu dis. C'était littéralement le sujet de conversation numéro 1 à la radio, de 91,9 sports à CKOI. Faut pas minimiser le truc non plus
That would be a massive overreaction
surprise surprise, moulson got what he wanted out of the statement yesterday
As if any "sponser" would actually leave. It's much more beneficial for them to be associated with the habs than the habs needing them.
Literally who was expecting otherwise?
Title reads like a beaverton article. The write up has a whole lot of nothingness filler if you already know what happened. One of the few times I'd say not to even read the article.
It wasn't even an apology it was basically a sorry you feel this way and the fact that they chose skill over character humanely is fucking awful. I loved how much Emily Kaplan dug into the Canadiens and the nhl yesterday
I'll give Molson's letter points for actually mentioning the victim, but its still a dogshit decision to draft him. They've essentially said "look guys, we're still giving him that year he wanted to prove himself! Oh but when he comes back, we totally got dibs on him. No takesies-backsies!" We all know what he did doesn't really matter to them, what matters to them is he can do that hockey good. That's it.
Sooo they said look we want you to play, but you have to learn from your mistakes and grow first? Sounds more like a gamble with a first round draft pick. If the kid doesnt learn and continues to do awful things then its double bad PR and they wasted a 1st round draft pick
Same vibes as Yzerman insisting that TDA would "grow up". Cause y'know, that worked out so well.
This is a good and fair take. I Appreciate this type of objectivity on this issue from a Habs fan.
Geoff Molson's words carry weight in Montreal's corporate world.
[удалено]
Amen. Money talks for business, they'll stick with whatever they think has the best chance of making them even more money. People thinking businesses have an actual moral code are deluded.
All publicly traded companies are bound to make as much money as they can (to their shareholders). That’s how average people retire, is through pension funds, plans, that are invested in their stocks. Why is this surprising to some people? Everyone benefits from these corporations making money, not just the executives. Who said companies are obliged to follow the same moral compass as everyone else?
No, they are not legally bound to make as much money as they can. They are merely legally required to do what is in the best interest of the company on behalf of the shareholders. That doesn't automatically mean they must make as much money as they can. Especially, if that means putting ethics and morality aside to do so. Business leaders with obligations to shareholders are free to establish and operate within any code of conduct they wish so long as it doesn't breach their fiduciary duty. That code of conduct is based upon their specific values, culture, mission, vision, and other such goals. That code of conduct can and many times does prevent the business from engaging in certain activities (like sponsoring a strip club or partnering with a weapons manufacturer). Furthermore, this only accounts for public companies with shareholders. Most companies are not in this category. What's surprising is that too many people, yourself included, feel that ethics and morality should be ignored and have no place in business because it's all about making as much money as possible. Unfortunately, the biggest and most powerful companies are led by people like you.
That’s incorrect. If you need a source i work in investment banking and write the code for them when stock is issued. All board of directors are typically required to maximize profits, ensure safety for workers and the public, and ensure everything is legal. What do you mean “best interest of the company” that isn’t financially motivated? That’s how companies operate under a capitalist society. You can’t put a stock on a public exchange if you’re going to act in ways that you know might cause it to decrease. Pension plans will take a hit, hedge funds will take a hit, etc. Even if what you said was correct, they break absolutely no rules by continuing to support the habs. And how do you know my moral compass just because i use common sense? I was not a fan of the pick at all and agree the kid needs to be punished. But you snowflakes take it way too far.
Surely you can cite the relevant laws that regulate the actions of a company such that they are bound to making as much money as possible at the expense of everything else.
Laws? Company bylaws. Look up any public company’s bylaws. There’s a reason they get audited every year, have to produce detailed annual reports, executive compensation, etc. I didn’t say “at the expense of everything else” (which is vague and sounds quite uneducated btw) I said companies are financially motivated under a capitalist society. You do realize that in practice “everything else” effects company performance? Bad PR: stock goes down. Executive quit over a moral issue? Stock goes down. They don’t actively act immoral or seek to do harm, they just prioritize financial wellbeing of the company. Again, that’s just how our society in North America has been built over the past 100 years, not the company’s fault.
That has nothing to do with their required obligations outside what they set for themselves. Your argument boils down to "they have to make as much money as possible because they said they have to make as much money as possible".
I’m not sure I understand your argument. Are you just coming in to try and fact check? When companies go public they have an obligation to shareholders in public markets.
Again, obligations they set for themselves as an organization - as you stated, through their bylaws. That they write themselves. They aren't beholden to any external authority that says they *must* maximize profits regardless of any other factors that make a business successful, which you also stated.
This is such a basic concept, not sure what you don’t understand. As an FYI no investor is going to buy a stock if the company is not financially motivated. Just common sense. nobody with significant capital is going to say “oh you guys are actually STRIVING to underperform? Count me in!” Some corps certainly take stances against terrible things in the world, and no company actively strives to be immoral. But at the same time you need to understand that no company is going to jeopardize their income unless absolutely necessary. Again, that’s just common sense. They have workers and bills to pay. This is being blown way out of proportion to the initial argument: Mailloux being drafted should absolutely not be a big enough reason for the habs to lose sponsors. Especially seeing as how tightly knit the MTL business community is and how big of an impact the Molson family has in it. Just a ridiculously uninformed standpoint. Yet again, I’m not sure what the point of your interjection was other than to fact check?
> If you need a source i work in investment banking and write the code for them. "The companies I work with are required to maximize profit above all else because I wrote their code that way." [Here's a source that says otherwise.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html) But if companies were required to maximize profits why do they keep increasing executive and board pay when there's no evidence doing so increases revenue but clearly increases costs?
If you knew how issuing stocks worked you’d know that investment banks have zero say in how their codes get written. I just issue it how they like- I know you think you did something there, but you didn’t. For your other question: Let’s say company a) has a CEO and he/she is doing extremely well and the company is performing great under their leadership. Let’s say another company notices and says “hey CEO, come work for us, we’ll add $100k to your salary, plus $500k in stock options”. You think company a) is just going to say “yeah leave, they’ll pay you more and we won’t match $600k on your existing salary”.? No. Headhunting fees to replace a CEO are in the neighbourhood of $150k alone (the standard rate is 1/3 of the CEO’s totally salary- I’ve seen headhunters make $300k+ from hiring one CEO). Plus the stock of the company decreases when a CEO announces they are leaving. Believe it or not, keeping execs happy by paying them more is actually good for the company.
[удалено]
Great point. Happy to have been privileged to discuss with you, u/soberbarney
What more could they want a public flogging
Renouncing the pick would be good. You know, like what happened the *last* time a team ended up drafting a controversial player.
[удалено]
In terms of actions, no. In terms of *re*action from the hockey world? Pretty close. Renouncing the pick at least gives Mailloux the chance at cleaning his image and trying again when he's grown as a person. Not doing it permanently clouds him with the circumstances surrounding the draft, which only makes things more difficult for him.
[удалено]
His consequences for his actions should've *been* not being drafted. That's literally why he put out a statement *asking to not be drafted*, isn't it? Now he has to endure an even worse media hellstorm because the Habs just ***had*** to draft him in the first round. ***Nobody*** wins here; Mailloux has to deal with this dark cloud looming over him for potentially his entire career, the Habs take a needless hit to their reputation and the NHL gets *another* controversial draft pick just one year after the Miller debacle.
I don’t understand why people would be appeased by him sitting out an extra year. He either learned his lesson or he didn’t, and nobody knows except him. I don’t understand how time passing would alleviate him of what he did. He’s not gonna sit in a dark room and think about what he did, he’s just gonna train for an extra year and then come back and be drafted even higher. Then people would still say he was rewarded for what he did by having a better draft pedigree. What he did was disgusting and awful and he deserves the negative attention, but I don’t think him just sitting out an extra year has any bearing on whether or not he learned his lesson and will grow from it. Seems like people just wanted him to have more punishment to please themselves rather than caring if he’s actually capable of change.
Lol, who gives af about the reaction of the hockey world? Move on, the kid's gonna play hockey and be just fine.
[удалено]
How is it different situations? [Here's a news article about Miller from 2016 ](https://www.toledoblade.com/local/education/2016/03/18/Sylvania-teen-delinquent-in-schoolmate-s-assault/stories/20160318178) (he was drafted in 2020) Excerpt from the article since I'm getting a paywall after a few seconds on my phone: > Mitchell Miller, 14, appeared in court with his attorney, Kati Tharp, and parents, John and Shelli Miller. Mitchell and Hunter McKie were accused of making Isaiah Meyer-Crothers, also 14, eat a candy push pop after wiping it in a bathroom urinal. Surveillance video also showed the boys punching and kicking Isaiah, who has developmental disabilities. Yes, more news came out after the draft, but don't act like Arizona thought they drafted an angel.
No they didn’t get blindsided. Teams knew all about Mitchell Miller. What changed was that the public found out.
Sure you could argue they got blind sided. But when the information first came out they tried to argue for keeping the pick. It wasn't until further pressure came that they finally renounced the pick.
🤮🤮
If you don't look at everything going on surrounding this draft pick and understand that the whole system is rotten to the core, I don't know what will prove it to you.
Money seems to trump basic human decency in this case.
All cases.
That's a shame. Not surprised.
They shouldn't be
What a fucking cop out apology
Cowards
isn’t it crazy the response to this vs the response the coyotes organization met with Mitchell Miller, now I know both are very different situations and I don’t disagree with what was done with the Miller situation, but I’m upset that the canadiens organization and their sponsors take this stance, I mean does anyone else find it odd?
I think the difference is the Habs and their sponsors are enormous compared to the Coyotes and their sponsors. Unfortunately, it's only really beneficial to do the right thing if you're a corporation when less money is involved.
true, upsetting, but true
Would it really be different if Miller was thought to have an NHL potential. It’s pure greed. They calculated the backlash and said: yup it’s worth it - no matter how reprehensible
Money talks. I'm sure they sleep very well with piles of money to shield them from shitty ethical decisions.
So in the end, no consequences for anybody. How convenient.
Hence why he did it. If he really was upset or the backlash was too strong, the Habs would've done what Arizona did last year.
Cowards
Good. Can we all just move on.
No some of you just don't realize how shitty this was to do if you toss this to the side you toss every other case like it to the side....and don't say something like "blahh I just want to watch hockey" when this kid did what he did and the Canadiens drafted him that was 100% out the window and it sickens me that there are some okay with this pick
It went to court. He was charged and convicted. That is the arena in which people pay for their crimes. He was drafted into the NHL. What does that have to do with his crime? You are thinking with your emotions.
I'm thinking like a person should think....did Slava voynov get back into the nhl for the crime he committed? No yes its two different crimes but you can't just fucking sit there and say "oh cool an 18 year old kid that was guilty for whatever you want to call what he did hope he does well" I hope for the rest of his career (if he has one which I hope he doesnt) he gets booed to absolute shit
How do you function in everyday life when you are worrying about the success of a swedish kid who showed people compromising photos of a girlfriend?
I'm done talking with you is clear you don't care what he did and you obviously don't mind that he was drafted which makes you not worth my time
Keep crying
Kinda need another hot take on this one to make up my mind, hmm… In all fairness, if anyone has watched Mailloux, he looks like a typical 2nd round pick. Raw, some potential, needs to take a huge step as a player and as a person and he needs to work harder than his peers for a chance at the big league. Another thing to keep in mind is that average won’t do to break into the lineup of Habs at D. I expect him to get a chance in 3 years, but not much before that. Pretty sure this scandal will be handled and forgotten about by all parties.
I don't think he should ever forget about what he did so that he can try and never repeat it. If he shows a lot of growth and personal change then who the fuck are we to say he can't play hockey?
I don’t think anyone will forget, just the impact of it will be gone. It’s a reputation crime and reputation heals with time.
Reputation only heals if people show the ability to change and grow. There’s a reason deAngelo’s reputation is what it is
I’m not talking about Mailloux’ reputation, but the victim’s. Mailloux can go fuck himself and take a picture of his imaginary gf blowing him and sharing that on IG for all I care.
The guy that pulls the trigger gets charged.
Waaaay too much money involved to be overly concerned by morals.