Morning Mashup: Yes Man

by Matt Mistele on December 20, 2012 in Morning Mashup - 769 Comments

Photo: Christian Petersen | Getty Images

Bill Daly did a few interviews Wednesday, including one with HNIC Radio. And he said some stuff that everyone’s takling about, including TSN, which is where I pulled the following quote from. Because, y’know, transcribing it myself would take an extra twenty seconds of effort that I just can’t muster right now. Mainly due to spite laziness.

When asked: “Yes or no, do we have a season?”, his answer was clear.

“Yes,” said Daly.

Daly expanded on his comments on TSN Radio 1290 Winnipeg’s Hustler and Lawless show later in the day.

“I tend to be more optimistic than some of the people I work with,” Daly said. “The bottom line is – [and] my view on this has been the same from the start – there’s no reason we shouldn’t be playing hockey.”

“I’d like to think that at the end of the day that reason will prevail,” he added, “and if reason prevails, we’ll play a hockey season this year.”

Donald Fehr apparently replied with (and I’ll just type this one, because it’s easy): “That’s good news, I’m glad to hear that. I hope he’s right.”

Sigh.

Politics, tactics, rhetoric, I don’t care. I’ve passed the point of “meh,” and it probably makes me a bad blogger that I’ve also passed the point where I’m letting the apathy very visibly affect my contributions here. I’m honestly less invested in the outcome at this point (one would like to think it’s a foregone conclusion – “reason”, indeed – that we will play some hockey this year) and more interested in a morbid curiosity-type analysis of the tactics at play.

Sometmies, we…uh, humanity, I mean…seem to learn the greatest lessons from the worst disasters. This absolutely unnecessary and PR-disaster-How-To-Guide NHL Lockout has at least provided some sensationalist entertainment as we watch just how far the desperate posturing will go.

In the event you’re tired of the zany hilarity and would prefer watching something a little less comical, here are the actual ‘Yes Man’ bloopers.

So, what meaning do we take from Daly and Fehr’s words Wednesday?

A few things jump out, in my purely subjective opinion, from Daly’s quotes.

• Don’t read too much into it. Daly was asked a point blank question and, frankly, I’m not sure he had time to deliver a calculated answer. I’d have definitely expected a “Well, I have every reason to be hopeful we can reach a deal without further damage done to the game”-type response. But the definitive yes, to me, seems more a result of him thinking, “Well, I can’t outright say no, because that would seem like a pessimistic PR-Titanic-Mayan-Apocalypse type response.” So he just said yes.
• His comments to TSN 1290 might indicate some frustration and…dissension? Daly’s doing everything he can in those quotes, rhetorically, to distance himself from the league’s presumed “official” image/position. OK, less so their position. But he willfully differentiates himself from the people he works with twice – once in calling himself “more positive,” than the others (I’M GOOD! THEY’RE BAD!), and then adding a totally personal, unnecessary qualifying clause to his second sentence (“…and this has been my view from the start”) that attempts to empathize (and side) with the widely held public opinion that the lockout itself is just totally unnecessary.
• His last statement is either pragmatically insightful, or the worst hypocrisy ever. “I’d like to think reason will prevail.” Yeah, welcome to our world, Bill. But again – is Daly differentiating himself from the league’s entrenched position, or trying to suggest that the NHLPA is/has been just fundamentally ridiculous negotiators during this whole thing? If it’s the first one…ooh, more dissension intrigue! But if it’s the second (and I’m betting on, “it’s the second”), then it’s just total hypocrisy. “You make all the concessions and unilaterally accept our demands on the major issues” isn’t what I’d call “reason,” and it’s basically been the league’s position the start. In other words – N is for National, L is for League, and H is for hypocrisy, kids!

Fehr’s comments are less interesting than they are expected. I haven’t seen any video, but I bet Fehr’s smiling when he delivers the quote. In delivering a fairly definitive “Yes” in his first radio interview, Daly accomplishes nothing but set himself (and us) up for disappointment if he’s wrong. He will, plainly, look a fool when if there’s not a season, now. Hmm. Maybe L is for Leverage, eh Don?

Alright, fine. I’m oversimplifying this whole thing.

But considering how deep the apathy’s running in my veins right now, the 724 words I gave this thing are still more than anything the NHL’s given me lately.

How about some links?

- From Tuesday, and TLN: Phil Kessel vs. Consistency.

- Also from Tuesday, and TLN: Breaking Boxcars. Somewhat disappointingly – has nothing to do with meth, or trains.

- In the execution of one colossally PR-stupid idea/pose, Evander Kane has managed to sum up with one photograph exactly why no one has any real sympathy for the types of NHL players who would actually be affected by 5 year terms limits on contracts. Via the link, PPP has used MS Paint to guess there’s about $225,800 in his hands. (Not dissimilar, I might add, to the sophisticated accounting practices used by the NHL to secure the NBC television deal and immediately subsequently declare themselves a cash-poor system just in time for CBA negotiations to begin).

- Thank heavens JVR went Christmas shopping dressed in his gear on Wednesday. Because, otherwise, Googling “Toronto Maple Leafs” and sorting the results by “News” generates a pretty damned desolate result. And I join the rest of you in asking, is that a vomit stain on his jersey?

Print article