Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Typical Jacobs

from Joe Haggerty of CSNNE,

Winnipeg Jets representation at a recent NHL Board of Governors meeting piped up to say it was opposed to engaging in a long, bloody lockout sure to stymie their franchise’s momentum and hurt the game of hockey.

It wasn’t Winnipeg owner Mark Chipman, but rather one of the alternate governors representing the Jets.

Bruins Principal Owner and Chairman of the Board of Governors Jeremy Jacobs answered by reprimanding the Winnipeg representative as one of the “new kids on the block” and informed him that he would know when he was allowed to speak in the NHL board room. 

That’s the kind of hawkish, dismissive, bully mentality that's driving the bus for the NHL lockout that's now cancelled games through the middle of December.

It’s also the reason why Bruins fans should hold Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs personally responsible.

read on

Filed in: NHL Teams, Boston Bruins, NHL Talk, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: jeremy+jacobs

Comments

 1 2 >       Next »

Avatar

This is why Bettman earns his money, and why Jacobs would be advised to keep a low profile.

Fans can hate a Commissioner with passion and not have their dollars or support be jeopardized.  He is Other.  Fans cannot hate a team owner without having their dollars or support jeopardized.  They will (rightly) feel that their dollars are going towards a dude they despise.  That will impact who goes.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/28/12 at 01:15 PM ET

Avatar

I don’t believe this article one bit, we know all of the owners are 100% behind Bettman since none of them have spoken out like some of the players.  Or is that a “crack” I’m hearing instead of the sound of $1million dollar fine clapping?

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/28/12 at 01:17 PM ET

Avatar

I don’t believe this article one bit, we know all of the owners are 100% behind Bettman since none of them have spoken out like some of the players. 

Strawman.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/28/12 at 01:29 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Jeremy Jacobs is allowing personal animus to cloud his decisions and that is hurting the process.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 01:35 PM ET

henrymalredo's avatar

Jeremy Jacobs is one of the longest-tenured NHL owners.  He remembers the days when Wirtz, Ziegler and Eagleson ran the league and wants a return to that.

Posted by henrymalredo from Lansing on 11/28/12 at 01:46 PM ET

Avatar

Jeremy Jacobs is allowing personal animus to cloud his decisions and that is hurting the process.

I agree that there are likely owners who are not thinking clearly.  I disagree that he has eschewed reason in the pursuit of personal vengeance.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/28/12 at 01:48 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Speaking of strawmen, who ever made the claim that Jeremy Jacobs was in pursuit of personal vengeance?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 01:50 PM ET

Avatar

yes.  we all should tell him how he should feel about running HIS franchise.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 11/28/12 at 01:59 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

yes. we all should tell other commenters how they should feel about how Jeremy Jacobs should feel about running HIS franchise.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 02:07 PM ET

Avatar

The one thing I don’t get is if Jacobs is a jerk who treats the other owners like trash and hijacks their agenda, why the frig did they elect him president of the BoG, instead of someone like, I don’t know, someone not named Jeremy Jacobs who wouldn’t be inclined to do any of that.

Posted by larry on 11/28/12 at 02:10 PM ET

henrymalredo's avatar

Jacobs is personally quite wealthy and owns a historical team with recent success that plays in one of America’s best hockey markets.  Yeah, he’ll make more money with NHLPA concessions, just like every other owner, but you’d be hard to argue that he needs them.  Like I’ve said before, Jacobs is of the old school and I don’t think he’s ever accepted how things have changed after the ouster of his good buddy Alan Eagleson.

Posted by henrymalredo from Lansing on 11/28/12 at 02:13 PM ET

Avatar

yes. we all should tell other commenters how they should feel about how Jeremy Jacobs should feel about running HIS franchise.

My comment was not directed at you or any commenters.  It was directed at the author of the article where he states “It’s also the reason why Bruins fans should hold Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs personally responsible.”

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 11/28/12 at 02:37 PM ET

Avatar

Speaking of strawmen, who ever made the claim that Jeremy Jacobs was in pursuit of personal vengeance?

You don’t understand the parallel you clumsily attempted to draw, apparently.

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/28/12 at 02:49 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You don’t understand the parallel you clumsily attempted to draw, apparently.

You don’t understand the level of satire I was ascribing to the comment, apparently.

Disagree with lots of claims that nobody made, though.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 02:53 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

yes. we all should tell other commenters how they should feel about how Jeremy Jacobs should feel about running HIS franchise.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 02:07 PM ET

Whoa, that was pretty meta.

You don’t understand the parallel you clumsily attempted to draw, apparently.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/28/12 at 02:49 PM ET

Spoken like Jeremy Jacobs!

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 11/28/12 at 03:25 PM ET

Avatar

Spoken like Jeremy Jacobs!

?

You don’t understand the level of satire I was ascribing to the comment, apparently.

No, your clumsy joke was attempting to compare between my position on the owners to my position on the players.  The reason it didn’t work is that you fumbled the comparison because you don;t understand the corrolary, or absence thereof.

Disagree with lots of claims that nobody made, though.

That’s an odd comment coming from a guy who apparently wants to pretend I think all the owners agree when I’ve said no such thing, and in fact quite the opposite.

But you’re JJ.  That’s your move.  Make up what the other guy says.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/28/12 at 03:55 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Is J.J. your new Captain Bob, HoHD? Or did they actually ban you and that’s why you spend all your time here now?

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 11/28/12 at 04:15 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The amount of invented narratives now is just getting silly, HiHD. It’s nearing the point of prosecution complex.

A parallel is something similar, but not the exact same thing. If I draw a parallel from Jacobs having a personal animus to the claim about the players having one, then that is the only part that is parallel. You introduced something irrelevant so you’d have something to argue about. That is a strawman.

a guy who apparently wants to pretend I think all the owners agree when I’ve said no such thing, and in fact quite the opposite.

When have I ever said I think you think all the owners agree?

That is another strawman.

Now the accusation that I’m making up what the other guy is saying creeps hastily into a projection. I haven’t accused you of making any position here.  In fact, I’ve only really taken my own and then watched you spin yourself around the axle trying to fight off myriad barbs nobody has thrown your way.

I think you may need a break; your reflective bubble is starting to heat up a bit.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 04:16 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

It’s nearing the point of prosecution complex.

Typo. Should read “Persecution”.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 04:17 PM ET

RedMenace's avatar

  It’s nearing the point of prosecution complex.

Typo. Should read “Persecution”.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 04:17 PM ET

Hell, go for broke and make it a “Prostitution” complex…

... or is that what the owners already have?

Posted by RedMenace from the Church of Jesus Lashoff on 11/28/12 at 05:11 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Hell, go for broke and make it a “Prostitution” complex…

... or is that what the owners already have?

Posted by RedMenace from the darkest recesses on 11/28/12 at 05:11 PM ET

The owners and one very short Calgary Flame.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 11/28/12 at 05:58 PM ET

Avatar

I think everyone is hating on the wrong guy.  This guy Jacobs needs to have his a$$ whipped buy some sane owners.

I’m neutral in this but this guy has been a real cheap sneak for a long while.  He’s from Buffalo I believe but owns the Boston Bruins.  The sport can’t afford narrow minded owners that sdeek to just wring all the money they can out of a franchise.

Tou guys have to expose more of these skinflimt owners.  seems like the powerhouse franchises are in the background.

Posted by 13 user names on 11/28/12 at 06:04 PM ET

Avatar

I think everyone is hating on the wrong guy.  This guy Jacobs needs to have his a$$ whipped buy some sane owners.

I’m neutral in this but this guy has been a real cheap sneak for a long while.  He’s from Buffalo I believe but owns the Boston Bruins.  The sport can’t afford narrow minded owners that sdeek to just wring all the money they can out of a franchise.

Tou guys have to expose more of these skinflimt owners.  seems like the powerhouse franchises are in the background.

Posted by 13 user names on 11/28/12 at 06:04 PM ET

Sort of dovetails with what I was saying. If Jacobs is a miserable fossil of a thankfully-forgotten era (this much I do accept) who bullies all/most of the other owners into accepting his pointless quest to turn back the clock against their wills….....who elected him president and why?

I mean, he’s long feuded with Ilitch, long feuded with Snider, the Leafs don’t see eye to eye with the executive board on, seemingly, anything and Jacobs spits in the faces of the new guys at the table, of whom there are many, yet he was just voted President semi-recently The remaining owners who haven’t been mentioned are mostly doves, apart from about 5.

I mean, maybe there’s a logical explanation for how all those things could coexist. But I’m buggered if I can think of one that matches up with the narrative Haggerty’s presenting

Posted by larry on 11/28/12 at 06:36 PM ET

Avatar

I don’t know what you guys are arguing about but I can picture Jacobs reading this thread and rubbing his hands together “That’s right, fight amongst yourselves….”

Posted by CallMeJerry on 11/28/12 at 08:30 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Posted by CallMeJerry on 11/28/12 at 08:30 PM ET

As long as everything stays above the waist, I’m ok with it.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 08:37 PM ET

Avatar

The Jets categorically deny the accusation or that the conversation ever occured. Of course that will have no bearing on those who prefer to believe their own conspiracies.

Posted by timbits on 11/28/12 at 09:43 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

If you want to believe Joe Haggerty just made up his story, the same as you want to believe that Frank Seravalli made up his story, power to you.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 09:46 PM ET

Avatar

If you want to believe Joe Haggerty just made up his story, the same as you want to believe that Frank Seravalli made up his story, power to you.

I think you proved my point. Do I believe these reporters or the owner of the team saying it is completely false? Chipman was there and the reporters weren’t so I guess I go with the eye witness, you can go with the hearsay.

Posted by timbits on 11/28/12 at 10:16 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Sure, because the owners have been so forthcoming with us before. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that they’d have even the slightest motivation to mislead.

Must be the evil media playing the public strings for fleeting attention.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 10:42 PM ET

Avatar

Must be the evil media playing the public strings for fleeting attention.

Or wishful thinking from anti-owner fans and writers.

Posted by timbits on 11/28/12 at 10:51 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Wishful thinking is one thing. What you’re backhandedly accusing two writers of doing is outright lying.

Like I said, believe what you want. Haggerty’s and Seravalli’s reputations work on their merits. Your thinking is every bit as wishful as anybody’s when you choose to believe what you do.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 10:55 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Priests and the Boyscouts.. I’m just saying.. trust no one.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 11/29/12 at 01:31 AM ET

SnLO's avatar

accusing two writers of doing is outright lying

Journalists are not above reproach. There is merit behind skepticism of media reporting.

Posted by SnLO from beyond the M-1 on 11/29/12 at 08:56 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Posted by SnLO from the Empty Barn on Civic Center Drive on 11/29/12 at 08:56 AM ET

I didn’t say journalists aren’t above reproach. I’m saying that I’ve got no indication that Haggerty and Seravalli are the kinds of reporters who are inherently reproachable.

When looking at the considerations, I’m not seeing a history of their stories being called “fabrications.” nor of being accused of taking people out of context in interviews. Now just seems an odd time that two writers so close to each other would sacrifice journalistic integrity.

Meanwhile, the NHL is the organization that came out of the last lockout saying that now that they had their “cost certainty”, they could lower ticket prices for the fans.

When comparing the merits, there are good reasons to believe either side and understandable reasons why either side would lie about this.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/29/12 at 09:18 AM ET

SnLO's avatar

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/29/12 at 09:18 AM ET

True, and it’s not that I think they may have fabricated a story; it is probably more likely that in the desperation for any story, they heard something and went with it without adequate substantiation.
But all that is also not to say that it isn’t true and that the owners have applied their own spin so as to quickly apply damage control on the appearance of a fracture in the room.
I was only addressing the seeming tone of your position that was giving the media a free pass in accountability of content. We’re all good now.

Posted by SnLO from beyond the M-1 on 11/29/12 at 09:49 AM ET

henrymalredo's avatar

The media should certainly be held accoutable and there is certainly history of reporters stretching the truth for a story, but I’d believe these reporters before the NHL and the BoG.  For these reporters lying for a story can end your career, but NHL owners have no incentives to tell the truth.  There is no consequences for them for lying, the NHL has a history of lying and it’s in their best interests and part of their communications strategy to lie with regards to the lockout.

Posted by henrymalredo from Lansing on 11/29/12 at 11:46 AM ET

Avatar

The amount of invented narratives now is just getting silly, HiHD

It’s always been silly, JJ.  Thanks for finally coming around.

If I draw a parallel from Jacobs having a personal animus to the claim about the players having one,

Obviously.  The part of this you fumbled so stupidly is in trying to equate a rather obvious reality that there is an absence of unanimity among the owners to a specific personal dislike for Bettman.

So, when you said:

“Jeremy Jacobs is allowing personal animus to cloud his decisions and that is hurting the process.”

What you are doing is stupidly fumbling a comparison between players hating Bettman personally and Jacobs hating… who?  A fellow owner?  That doesn’t make any sense.

It’s why your attempt at ‘satire’ failed so miserably.  In order for something to be ‘satire’ it has to be referencing something that actually happened.  Otherwise it’s just…

..fiction.

When have I ever said I think you think all the owners agree?

When have I ever said you said that I think all of the owners agree?  I think you want to pretend I said that, so that when it comes up that, shock and surprise, there are schisms between a group of 30 fairly wealthy guys who are in some ways Alpha Males in their own spheres of influence you can make a stupidly obtuse comment about it and then pretend you’re contrasting with something I said.

Or ‘satirizing’ it, in your bastardized understanding of that word.

If you want to believe Joe Haggerty just made up his story, the same as you want to believe that Frank Seravalli made up his story, power to you.

When comparing the merits, there are good reasons to believe either side and understandable reasons why either side would lie about this.

And yet in your first comment you appear to be dismissive of those who follow your adivce in comment 2.

Is J.J. your new Captain Bob, HoHD?

You know, I hadn’t actually thought about it but that’s a pretty strong comparison.  Both guys like to play very smart but are willing to be astoundingly obtuse when it serves, both guys like to throw discussion overboard for trolling, and both guys are capable of amazing feats of hypocrisy.

+1 to you, HO.

Or did they actually ban you and that’s why you spend all your time here now?

Nah, I still have access over there as far as I am aware.  Just got bored with the posters.

The media should certainly be held accoutable and there is certainly history of reporters stretching the truth for a story, but I’d believe these reporters before the NHL and the BoG.

If I had to guess, I’d say the reporters got the story very generally right but either missed or embellished a ton of details and washed out a load of relevant context.

For instance, I think Jacobs would be perfectly justified in telling an exec that had owned a team for 1 year and had a successful one financially to stow it when it comes to a discussion that has impacted a whole bunch of other teams a whole lot more for a whole lot longer.

Absent all context, Jacobs barking at a fellow exec and telling them to shut up and sit down makes Jacobs sound like an *#$%@&.  Hell, even if you included all the context Jacobs might still sound like an *#$%@&… mostly because by all accounts the guy actually in an *#$%@&.

Still, there’s a reason most people my age have played and remember the ‘Telephone’ game.  Perception and recollection are impacted by distance, time, and filter.  The writer ‘remembers’ what was said, talks it over with someone else who ‘remembers’ it, they hammer out what they ‘remember’ in tandem, an editor smooths out the piece and punches it up, and then you end up with an article that’s gone through 2-5 retouches by 3 different people at least.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/29/12 at 12:21 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Obviously.  The part of this you fumbled so stupidly is in trying to equate a rather obvious reality that there is an absence of unanimity among the owners to a specific personal dislike for Bettman.

This is the specific strawman you created. I didn’t equate that, you did. You equated it specifically so you could argue against it.

That’s what I meant with the entire piece about how parallel does not mean equal. You don’t seem to grasp that. See, if I had said “Jeremy Jacobs is allowing personal animus against Gary Bettman to cloud his decisions and that is hurting the process.”, then you’d actually have something to disagree with.  Unfortunately, you had to mentally add words to that. What that does equates; it does not draw a parallel.  They are two separate things and it appears you’re not quite clear on the definition of a whole new set of words that you like to use.

Let’s see if I can simplify

Jeremy Jacobs is being an *#$%@& and that’s not what’s good for the process.

You see; there are parallels to the underlying agreement that having a personal animus in this situation is bad for the process, but a separation caused by the stupidity that players who aren’t anywhere near the room expressing their frustration must be representative of the people actually doing the negotiating.

You could almost imagine that the two situations are following a similar path to logic with a key separation between them.

If this is all too complicated, I could draw you a picture. Just imagine two lines on a Euclidean plane which never intersect, but share the appearance of a common direction.

Jacobs hating… who?  A fellow owner?  That doesn’t make any sense.

Everybody who isn’t Jeremy Jacobs, apparently. To paraphrase somebody I rarely agree with (and even when I do agree with him, he seems to want to disagree about our level of agreement): by all accounts, Jeremy Jacobs is actually an *#$%@&.

I think you want to pretend I said that,

You think that without any evidence to support it.  Have fun with it.

And yet in your first comment you appear to be dismissive of those who follow your adivce in comment 2.

crybaby logic. The appearance there is driven by your bias. Now I can’t even magnanimously say that it’s ok not to agree with me without being dismissive? What power my words must hold when loaded with such vitriol in your eyes.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/29/12 at 12:49 PM ET

Avatar

It’s why your attempt at ‘satire’ failed so miserably.

Except that it didn’t.

You pretend it did because it was 100% spot on and highlights what a fool you look like when you make your proclamations about the players, and you don’t like that.

Posted by Garth on 11/29/12 at 01:23 PM ET

Avatar

If you want to believe Joe Haggerty just made up his story, the same as you want to believe that Frank Seravalli made up his story, power to you.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/28/12 at 09:46 PM ET

Not necessarily the right either/or. It’s not out of the question that someone leaked a BS story or something wrong he heard third hand to either of them. I think this is far more likely in the case of Haggerty than in the case of Seravelli, who had a book worth of additional, corroborating details on his story than Haggerty seems to.

I mean, maybe Warlock Jacobs wrinkles his nose, points a bony finger and uses it to zap the noble hockey rescuer from Winnipeg, but some things about this story seems off to me.

Seravelli’s story: Snider’s sick of leaving money on the table and his bosses at Comcast are getting antsy, so he’s trying to get the ball rolling toward a settlement behind the scenes, raises no such red flags for me. In addition, when pressed for background information on Marek Vs Wyshynski, Seravelli had a truckload of it.

Posted by larry on 11/29/12 at 02:16 PM ET

 1 2 >       Next »

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 Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com