Kukla's Korner

Abel to Yzerman

Note To Commodore: Don’t Do It

IwoNote: Thought I’d bring this comment up top, because irritating people like this is really a joy that hasn’t stopped in five years of blogging.

Third, and most importantly… “You’re a Detroit Red Wing now, Mike Commodore.” is utterly, filthy disgusting arrogance.

Exactly.  I’m a Wing fan.  Filthy. Disgusting.  Arrogant.

——————-

Yep, I’ll be the one to say it.  Or, at least I’ll be the one to devote a post to it.

You’re a Detroit Red Wing now, Mike Commodore.  You’re not a gimmick and you don’t need alternate story lines to endear yourself to the best fans in hockey.  Play hard. Lay some wood in front of Jim Howard. Kill some penalties and be a leader. 

This guy takes 64 and he’ll be a clown everywhere he goes.  Every out of town paper will ask him about it. Every beat writer who needs a quick story is going to head right for Commodore.  Wear it for exhibition season. Raise some money (and kudos to Puck Daddy for the idea).  But when the regular season rolls around?

That’s when you get down to business.  It’s your frigging livelihood, not a lemonade stand sales pitch for a franchise that doesn’t need it. Leave ploys like this to Carolina, to Denver, to Phoenix, to Nashville…wherever it’s necessary to sell tickets or gain attention for a reason other than hockey.

JJ put it best right here

I’m more than happy to bark and clap like a seal for Commodore actually going through with it, but I want him to want to do it rather than feel some sort of overwhelming obligation to put on the clown nose and get hit in the face with pies for our amusement.

Bottom line is I don’t like that he basically has to become the jerkhole for choosing not to wear #64 for whatever reason he might have (which is just as valid as anybody’s reason why he SHOULD be wearing it)

And don’t even try to pull the charity aspect either - If it’s such a good cause, all the people who pledged should be giving the money to them regardless of whether Commodore plays along.

You want to give money to charity? Have at it.  There’s a children’s hospital right around the corner who would love a donation, or even a few quiet visits to some kids who would love to see you.  Hell, we’ll help you out. The hockey world knows the 19 have proven ourselves as some of the most generous fans around.  But taking a number to appease the nerd sect, no matter the amount raised—an amount that could be equaled in many other ways—it’s not the Red Wing way.

You’ve been hired to keep Jimmy’s playhouse clear, Mike.  You were brought on to be a bad man with a purpose, not a punch line.  Not in Detroit.

 

Filed in: | Abel to Yzerman | Permalink
 

Comments

« Previous        < 1 2 3     

mrfluffy's avatar

I may have just flip-flopped. I enjoy a good riling up of the trolls in the morning. Nicely done.  smile

Posted by mrfluffy from Long Beach on 07/11/11 at 01:49 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Anyway, you’re right about one thing: the fact that people are making donations contingent on him going through with this IS the issue, but what’s the remedy?  If tons of people won’t donate if he doesn’t take 64, there are two options: (1) just lose that money, and (2) have him take the number and not lose the money.  People will always be jerks, but that’s just the way it is.

Personally, my remedy would be for Wyshynski to publish the emails and email addresses of everybody who pledged a donation and then backed off for whatever reason, then let the court of public opinion try them. After all, the internet isn’t very good at dealing with empathy, but we’re awesome at telling each other what to do.

Well, myopic means vehemently supporting only one viewpoint and refusing to acknowledge the merits of any others, right?  So we once again get the opportunity to apply your own logic to your posts: by being as steadfastly opposed to my viewpoint as I am to yours, you are being just as much of a “myopic shart” as I am.  So…congratulations?

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 11:37 AM ET

I know you are but *poops in pants*

Posted by tkfergy on 07/11/11 at 11:43 AM ET

Haha, I didn’t even know there were that many Bens!

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/11/11 at 01:54 PM ET

Avatar

tkfergy: I said several times that the people who wouldn’t donate just because he doesn’t change his number are jerks.  I very conspicuously did not say that I personally would not donate.  I think the fact that I think people who would make their donation contingent on him changing his number are jerks would make it pretty obvious that I wouldn’t do that.

And would someone please explain to me why it’s bad to pressure this guy to take a jersey number if it will result in so much money for an important charity?  I’m actually asking this for a completely legitimate reason: I actually agree with you guys that it’s silly to just pressure the guy to take a number just because you want him to take part in a silly joke.  But what I and many others here are advocating is very clearly not that he should do it because people want a good laugh or that people who think he shouldn’t do it for that reason are wrong.  What we are advocating is that he do it if it will get tons of money donated to charity.  That is a really, really, really big difference, pressuring him just to get a cheap laugh and pressuring him to get donations.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 01:56 PM ET

Avatar

Captnorris5:  “I refuse to engage in any sort of conversation with someone not willing to use the property terminology.”  I hope that was a joke because it’s pretty funny if it is.  It’s also funny if it’s not.

And you’re right, they are pledges and not donations.  Actually, I should have said that from the start since it bolsters my main argument: that thousands of dollars to charity will be lost.  The fact that all the $6,000+ that has already been pledged, plus whatever will be pledged over the course of the rest of this drive, is all the more reason for him to take 64.

Personally, my remedy would be for Wyshynski to publish the emails and email addresses of everybody who pledged a donation and then backed off for whatever reason, then let the court of public opinion try them. After all, the internet isn’t very good at dealing with empathy, but we’re awesome at telling each other what to do.

Ah yes.  I’m sure that will work out perfectly.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 02:00 PM ET

tkfergy's avatar

The difference is that we(I think J.J. agrees) that it is stupid to try and pressure someone to wear a specific number because of anything. Most hockey players are superstitious and will only take their number so changing said number in their minds effects the way they play… So pressuring someone who doesn’t want to change to change is dumb.

Posted by tkfergy on 07/11/11 at 02:03 PM ET

CaptNorris5's avatar

I very conspicuously did not say that I personally would not donate.

Nope. No you didn’t. You can’t conspicuously not say something.

That is a really, really, really big difference, pressuring him just to get a cheap laugh and pressuring him to get donations.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 11:56 AM ET

Ok. Let’s start a fundraiser for Ovechkin to change his number to 69. Or for Rosby to legally change his last name to Smegma. Should those guys do that if we raise enough money for charity?

The point here from the damn beginning is that if Commie doesn’t want to take the number, he shouldn’t have to. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest he’s never wanted to in the past, considering the various teams he’s played for, the fact that this isn’t a particularly original idea, and his failure to ever don it up to this point. So people should just chill. Make rather than rolling with unilateral third party beneficiary contracts (YES!), the charity campaign ought to be exactly what JJ mentioned above: direct donations with no conditions. If he wants it, fine. If he doesn’t, fine. Everyone wins. Nobody really gives a shit if he wears the number or not.

Just because there’s some money on the line doesn’t require him to do something he doesn’t want to do. It certainly doesn’t make everyone with differing opinions anti-charity. That’s not really how it works. The charity thing is supposed to be for a good cause, not so that people can force those with differing opinions to shut up or be vilified.

Posted by CaptNorris5 from The Winged Wheel, stuck in Chicago on 07/11/11 at 02:11 PM ET

CaptNorris5's avatar

Captnorris5:  “I refuse to engage in any sort of conversation with someone not willing to use the property terminology.”  I hope that was a joke because it’s pretty funny if it is.  It’s also funny if it’s not.

Ha, that’s what I get for switching back and forth between yammering about this meaningless shit and studying property for the bar exam. It’d be a good pun if somehow managed to turn “proper” into “contract” but that’d be a helluva typo. Though, at this point by brain is mostly mush anyway, so anything’s possible.

Posted by CaptNorris5 from The Winged Wheel, stuck in Chicago on 07/11/11 at 02:17 PM ET

Avatar

Captnorris5: What law school did you attend?  I just finished my first year at Fordham.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 02:19 PM ET

Avatar

Let’s be honest, 85% of the stuff on PD is pointless, poorly written worthless garbage.  KK is the real center of the hockey blogsphere. 

I emailed PD the day of his first post and pledged to donate $5 to the charity of Commodore’s choice, anytime he is plus player in a game next season.

Posted by datsyukian on 07/11/11 at 02:23 PM ET

Avatar

And actually yes, you can conspicuously not say something.  If you included the sentence before that, where I began with, “I said several times that…” it actually works in context.  I said something, and the absence of the thing I did not say was conspicuous.  Clearly you went to law school, so you know that the absence of something can be conspicuous (and I don’t say that sarcastically.  The fact that you went to law school means you probably have a significantly higher-than-average grasp of the English language).

Just in case you’re still not convinced, here’s the definition of conspicuous from dictionary.com: “easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable: a conspicuous error”

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 02:26 PM ET

CaptNorris5's avatar

Captnorris5: What law school did you attend?  I just finished my first year at Fordham.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 12:19 PM ET

Fellow sufferer of the jesuits, eh? Loyola Chicago here. Taking the Michigan bar in 16 days. Then I can finally be done with this god forsaken city and get back to the motherland.

Posted by CaptNorris5 from The Winged Wheel, stuck in Chicago on 07/11/11 at 02:33 PM ET

Avatar

“Fellow sufferer” indeed.  I absolutely hate my school.  The only reason I chose it over Columbia was because they offered me a bit of money (I wasn’t willing to go anywhere outside the tri-state area, so almost all the schools in between weren’t candidates).  Now that I’ve been there for a year, I can say with absolute certainty that I wouldn’t have taken the money if had known how much it sucks at Fordham.  It’s not like they gave me even close to half the cost of tuition, so the money just isn’t worth it.

It’s really just my school that I hate.  I actually don’t hate law school at all.  It’s not nearly as bad as people always say it is, and I have no idea why people exaggerate the amount of work and effort it takes.  I’m definitely not saying that it isn’t a long, arduous slog, but I’ve known so many people who are/were recent law school students and they all said things like, “oh man you’ll be working fourteen hours a day every day in the library” and other such nonsense.  Sure, it takes a lot of time and effort, but people make it out to be so much worse than it really is for some reason.  I don’t know…maybe it’s like “war stories.”

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 02:45 PM ET

CaptNorris5's avatar

And actually yes, you can conspicuously not say something.  If you included the sentence before that, where I began with, “I said several times that…” it actually works in context.  I said something, and the absence of the thing I did not say was conspicuous. 

Sweet, I was hoping to bring this totally off track. Here’s the key distinction. You noted that it works in context. If it requires context, it’s not conspicuous. Sure, it may have been a reasonable inference to conclude your stance accordingly, but it was in no way conspicuous. For example, the implied warranty of merchantability can be disclaimed, but the disclaimer must be conspicuous and in writing. Such a disclaimer wouldn’t be enforceable if the seller simply listed all the warranties that did exist, excluding the warranty of merchantability. Where it requires context, as your statement did, it’s not conspicuous as it’s not readily visible or observable without. You’d have to examine your entire statement to come to the conclusion you believe is conspicuous. That makes it decidedly inconspicuous. 

Lawyered.

...god I hate myself. Is it fuching October yet?!

Posted by CaptNorris5 from The Winged Wheel, stuck in Chicago on 07/11/11 at 02:50 PM ET

Avatar

“lawyered” exactly, because what you’re saying doesn’t apply to my post.  You’re talking about how, in contracts, the conspicuousness of something is important (yes, I do know almost all of that stuff as contracts was one of my classes last semester).  When we’re not talking about law, the absence of something can be conspicuous.  For example, haven’t you ever heard someone say something like, “X politician’s absence at X event was conspicuous, considering that the event was for an organization that supports X issue, which has been the main focus of X politician since he began his first term in the Senate.”  Haven’t you ever heard anyone say something like, “the absence of any sort of timetable was conspicuous, considering X politician said just two days ago that he would be announcing a timetable during today’s speech.”  The absence of something can be conspicuous.  You can’t apply the standards of law to everything, no matter how much your brain might want to do that right now.

Unlawyered.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 03:07 PM ET

tkfergy's avatar

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 01:07 PM ET

you use to many Xs try using a Y or Z now and then…

Posted by tkfergy on 07/11/11 at 03:15 PM ET

CaptNorris5's avatar

Unlawyered.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 01:07 PM ET

Applying the contractual standard was just an example, not the exclusive controlling point. Your post required a thorough examination of everything you wrote, then an interpretation thereof, in order to come to what you said.

In your above contextual scenarios the absence of something may be conspicuous to those that have the proper extrinsic knowledge. It would not require further interpretation and the development of an independent conclusion. However, it would be inconspicuous to those who didn’t have the extrinsic knowledge. If someone didn’t know that X politician was supposed to be at the event, his absence wouldn’t be conspicuous at all.

In the immediate scenario, the statement that you claim was conspicuously missing related to your own personal willingness to donate. While it is true that you did not include a statement indicating that you would not personally donate money, it was never actually said. As a result, it required knowledge of extrinsic facts (your personal feelings toward charity, your financial capability to make donations, even your personal subjective opinion on the benefits or drawbacks of being a jerk) that we, as random ass strangers, do not have access to. It also would have required that the inclusion of a statement to the contrary would be necessary, and it’s exclusion left a clear and noticeable gap that would have been conspicuous. It may have been a reasonable inference, perhaps it was a logical conclusion, but it was not a conspicuous statement.

Ununlawyered.

...and I still hate my life. October, October, October, October, October.

you use to many Xs try using a Y or Z now and then…

Posted by tkfergy on 07/11/11 at 01:15 PM ET

Algebraed.

Posted by CaptNorris5 from The Winged Wheel, stuck in Chicago on 07/11/11 at 03:41 PM ET

Avatar

you use to many Xs try using a Y or Z now and then…

I’m not writing a math equation.  The whole point of using Y, Z, and any other letters is to avoid confusion for the reader.  When a letter is used to represent a specific subject, a different letter for another subject only needs to be used if you will be referencing either of those subjects many times because that would necessitate the use of different letters to avoid confusion.  Another reason using different letters is not necessary for my post is that the letters are followed by descriptors (e.g “X politician,” “X issue”), thus avoiding any possible confusion in a sentence so short and with so few “X subjects.”  Finally, my first example only has three uses of these types of terms—one “X issue” and two “X politician”—so while I could have used a Y for X issue, it wasn’t necessary because of the previous two reasons.  In the other example in my post, this technique is only used once, and, since you always start with X, there was no possibility for other letters.

So really, if you wanted to be extremely picky, there was one instance above where I could have used Y (the instance being “X issue”), but being that the sentence in which that instance occurs has descriptors for each X, only two subjects, and was only one sentence in which one subject was referenced twice and the other once, using Y is completely unnecessary.  Your suggestion that I try a Z is irrelevant because one always starts X-Y-Z, and neither example has more than two subjects.  So really, there’s only one instance in which I could have used any other letter besides X, and it’s not necessary.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 03:47 PM ET

CaptNorris5's avatar

Rabble! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

Posted by CaptNorris5 from The Winged Wheel, stuck in Chicago on 07/11/11 at 03:49 PM ET

CaptNorris5's avatar

OK, OK, we were clearly having a douche-off. It was hard fought, and quite a match. But, I must concede. You’re too much of a match.

You win.

I can at least take solace in the fact that I can proudly tell mother, with my head held high, that I am the runner-up World’s Douchiest Bag.

Posted by CaptNorris5 from The Winged Wheel, stuck in Chicago on 07/11/11 at 03:51 PM ET

Avatar

Captnorris5:

Well now we’re getting into whether or not the reader was given enough extrinsic knowledge to make sense of my statement that I “conspicuously did not” say something, which is ultimately a subjective question.  I feel that there was enough evidence in my previous posts to convey to other users my feelings about charity and, in particular, this situation.  I also think that prefacing the sentence in question with “I said several times that the people who wouldn’t donate just because he doesn’t change his number are jerks” adds enough to make my thoughts about the subject easily discernible, especially if one considers the fact that this sentence comes immediately before the sentence in question.

But anyway, like I said: it’s subjective.

I actually like that you can argue with me so civilly.  I guess some people learn how to do that in law school….though it seems like others learn how to be worse jerks than they were before.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 04:09 PM ET

Avatar

Funny.  I just said in my last post that I liked how we were disagreeing civilly, but then I saw your post about it being a douche-off right after I submitted it.  I didn’t think you were being a douche.  I thought we were having a genuinely interesting debate…especially between two law school people.

Anyway, good luck on your bar exam!

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 04:13 PM ET

CaptNorris5's avatar

Funny.  I just said in my last post that I liked how we were disagreeing civilly, but then I saw your post about it being a douche-off right after I submitted it.  I didn’t think you were being a douche.  I thought we were having a genuinely interesting debate…especially between two law school people.

Anyway, good luck on your bar exam!

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 02:13 PM ET

Dude, we were totally being douches. We were arguing over the definition of the word conspicuous on a hockey blog. I think in order to be more douchey you have to be short, bald, and standing between the benches of two NHL team.

Posted by CaptNorris5 from The Winged Wheel, stuck in Chicago on 07/11/11 at 04:48 PM ET

Avatar

Hahaha ok fair enough.  I will agree that we were douches because we were arguing it on a hockey blog.  Otherwise, I feel the substance was largely douche-free.  Actually, I’m pretty sure Douche-Free is a product that affords women the ch…..actually, forget it.  I’m not going to continue with that one.

Posted by Ben S. on 07/11/11 at 04:56 PM ET

Pugna Vox's avatar

I thought we were having a genuinely interesting debate

No. Not in the least. There’s a thousand and one intellectually masturbatory legal blogs. Go talk about it there; NBA scores are more relevant. 

If anything is conspicuous in its absence in these comments, it would be redolent swagger from the Shynskiite brigade. Don’t bring a two-step to an ass-stompin’ party.

Posted by Pugna Vox from Idiot Out Wandering Around on 07/11/11 at 04:57 PM ET

Avatar

Hey serious hockey dudes, you’re all right. Don’t allow this clown to parade infront of the JL fans wearing a silly tribute to a machine.


*throws octopi onto the ice*

Posted by DC on 07/11/11 at 07:11 PM ET

Avatar

Take the sticks out of your asses. How the hell is choosing 64 as his name a bad thing? It shows he has a sense of humor and not a humorless bunch of morons like the people that have a problem with this. You really need to stop with the “This is Detroit” blah blah blah. This coming from fans whose team had the biggest gimmick of any sports team ever in naming itself Hockeytown. Get over yourselves.

Posted by James from Windsor on 07/12/11 at 12:12 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

biggest gimmick of any sports team ever

Totes, brah. The. Biggest. Ever.

ZOMG

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/12/11 at 01:29 AM ET

Avatar

You’re complaining about a gimmick? Umm, octopi, anyone? Also, who cares? If you really think reporters will have nothing better to do than to ask Mike Commodore about the Commodore 64, then you have a false sense of reality. Mike Commodore isn’t even that well know. Sure, most of us in the hockey world know his name, but he’s not some star whose story behind a number needs to be heard all the time.
If he actually wears 64, it’ll just be a footnote in his Detroit career. You’re making this much bigger of a deal than it has to be. Just shut up, let him choose whatever number he wants, and get back to throwing octopi onto the ice and singing Journey, because those totally aren’t gimmicks.

Posted by Chris from Chicago on 07/12/11 at 06:09 PM ET

Avatar

There’s a word for anyone who thinks a player choosing his number with some form of levity or humor behind it would affect his performance on the ice in any manner: IDIOT.

Posted by Sean from Florida on 07/15/11 at 12:16 PM ET

« Previous        < 1 2 3     

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Abel to Yzerman

Welcome to Abel to Yzerman, a Red Wing blog since 1977.  No other site on the internet has better-researched, fact-laden and better prepared discussions than A2Y.  Re-phrase: we do little research, find facts and stats highly overrated and claim little to no preparation.  There are 19 readers of A2Y. No more, no less. All of them, except maybe one, are juvenile in nature.  Reminding them of that in the comment section will only encourage them to prove that. Your suggestions and critiques are welcome: wphoulihan@gmail.com