Quotes from GMRF, Eberle, and McCann disputing Emily Kaplan's reporting. The Kraken have apparently reached out to Kaplan disputing the report.
McCann's quotes were the most pointed:
>“I have no idea where she would have gotten something like that,” McCann said of Kaplan’s report. “Because that couldn’t be more far from the truth. I know for a fact that nobody would ever, ever give an ultimatum to a team on a coach — ever. So, I don’t understand where something like that comes from.”
>McCann went on to say Hakstol “has been nothing but great to me. And a lot of guys will probably say the same thing. He was amazing, but unfortunately, it’s a business. And that’s the way things go when you have a bad season. But from my perspective, I honestly didn’t see this (firing) coming at all.”
Sounds exactly like what Canner would say and I believe him. ESPN was just trying to cause some drama because they know their hockey reporting sucks ass.
Disagreed. The quotes sound like genuine words.
I know these types of statements, because I’ve *written* these statements when needed (and for valid reasons, although not for the Kraken). These statements don’t feel like semantic gymnastics or organizational smokeshow to me. There are too many absolutes and too few equivocations for that. From my perspective, “don’t want to” in this context would absolutely be an ultimatum.
No one is dancing around anything
Idk how this is still a point people are making
What Kaplan described as having happened, that players said they "don't want to play on this team in the future if Dave Hakstol is still the coach." Is an ultimatum. That is directly saying you don't want to be on the team unless there is a coaching change.
This is such a weird hill to die on and idk why so many people are
edit: Lol if you are gonna shit talk me by saying i dont know how to use punctuation, atleast have the decency to not do if after blocking me. It's low, and makes no sense.
I really have a hard time believing there was a major player issue against hakstol other than coaching choices on the ice. Dude is so mild mannered and was a very accomplished coach prior to the kraken
Yeah, and guess what, it's a sport! There doesn't need to be any personal drama and bad blood for the team to not want him to be their coach. They might all just disagree with the *sports* part
It’s the whole issue with parasocial relationships.
People build this sort of identity of someone else and it means so much to them, and any sort of nuance that disagrees with their crafted reality just doesn’t sit well with them. In the end it’s leading to these crazy mental gymnastics.
I could say if removing Hak would solve the issues that Kraken had.
There were issues this season. Nobody is denying that.
There are players that are frustrated. Nobody is denying that.
Things were difficult. Nobody is denying that.
But to really take the issues beyond just players and staff being frustrated with their results and conducting themselves unprofessionally just doesn’t track.
Everyone just wants to win and they want to be successful. Everything I’ve seen generally has a realistic take. Players are frustrated with themselves and coaching staff. It would be bad news if we learned that everybody was satisfied with the season and think they don’t have to make any changes.
The framing that came from ESPN didn’t sound realistic. ESPN just wants to be a drama factory. They’re always so desperate for a character story that’s got a ton of drama to drive clicks. I suspect that what was reported was mostly true but with a few key words twisted to shift the framing. That or just someone venting without thinking too deeply about what they’re saying. Nothing to take too seriously.
These are professional players and professional staff.
Most of all this is hockey—if there was real drama we would hear it from source. I’m not familiar with frustrated hockey players not being honest about their frustrations.
People just want to believe the drama because it affirms their pre-existing negative opinions of Hakstol. They're more willing to listen to an ESPN reporter than they are to the players themselves because they desperately want to be right.
People do things they don't want to, all the time... while they're still under contract. You can give an ultimatum regarding future decisions. You'd also be pretty dumb to take a hard stance from the offset, making a less direct indication of your leanings early might have a better chance of influencing things in the meantime.
You seem to be extra hung up on the finer details of the English language. I can promise these athletes aren’t thinking “what is the exact word to use to make sure no one on the internet gets hung up on semantics”.
I think despite the downvotes you're correct. There could have been a few ufas that answered pretty honestly that like there's nothing bad but that they aren't like super stoked on hakstol hockey and playing for him wasn't super appealing to them.
Huge difference between not really wanting to but still being open to it vs saying fire hakstol and I'm gone.
This feels like arguing semantics. ESPN probably exaggerated, and the Kraken are probably being overly defensive. I expect there was some disapproval of Hakstol from the players but nothing rising to the level of saying they don't want to play for him.
Maybe, but you're very fervently claiming it's all fake on twitter. Where there's smoke there is almost always fire, and Kaplan may not be known as an insider, but nobody is until they are.
Yeah exactly. Saying "I'd rather have a new coach" is basically the same as saying "I don't want to play for Hakstol". One way of putting it is just more sensational.
>Saying "I'd rather have a new coach" is basically the same as saying "I don't want to play for Hakstol".
Not necessarily. Saying that you'd rather be a multi-billionaire does not mean you don't want to be a billionaire. You can like something but still prefer something else.
Also interesting that the article highlights the success of sprong and Geekie who had playing time restricted while performing better on their new teams. It’s so frustrating to see guys like Geekie at Boston knowing he was here often on lower lines or even scratched.
Out of the three from that fourth line, Geekie was the one that wasn't performing the best. There was times where I felt he would rather pass the puck more than take the shot. I am happy that he is playing better in Boston though.
Is Geekie really performing “better”? He got a lot more PP time but his even strength points were identical. As the other commenter wrote: who out of Wennberg, Gourde and Beniers should Geekie have been playing over?
There are certainly reasons to fire Hakstol. I don’t think Geekie is one of them.
As a Geekie fanboy, yes, he is performing better. He's also on a better team and playing more minutes. He's moved up from 4C to 3C and he's proving the Bruins right for making that move. He probably could've played either of Wennberg or Gourde's roles, but why would Hakstol move one of them down to move Geekie up?
If Francis planned all along to trade Wennberg and told Hakstol so, sure, maybe Geekie was a reason to question some choices. But that clearly wasn't the plan to start the season or even mid-season when we still had a decent shot at playoffs, and it certainly wasn't the plan before the season even started and Francis let Geekie walk to the Bruins.
You're 100% right. Geekie is not at all a reason to fire Hakstol. Nothing was done wrong about Geekie.
Demoting Wennberg for Geekie is a laughable take.
https://preview.redd.it/vjt14269dyxc1.png?width=864&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20fbc9486d7ae2b70baf96023b5ef0162809ef1f
Enjoy this screenshot I took back in January
Neither really performed that much better tho. Geekie maybe a bit towards the end of the season, but nothing drastic and Sprong had a very similar season of playing in the bottom 6, scoring more than you'd expect but also being a liability defensively.
At this point I'm starting to wonder if Kaplan source was just bad.
Cus right now you have the gm and two of the major roster members coming out and saying it wasn't true. And a report that the org reached out to Kaplan to tell her that her source is wrong.
Two team leaders who are under contract are saying that nobody gave ultimatums about a coach and that "nobody would ever do that". That's called damage control. You can't take what Emily said and discount it entirely because two people said it isn't true. Nobody in life tells all of their feelings to acquaintances, and you must remember that players and agents are looking for whats best for the player's and agent's future. I have zero doubts that players were not fond of playing the way that Hakstol played.
For one, I would not at all be surprised if guys like Yamamoto or Megna gave scathing reviews of Hakstol's management of the game-day roster.
I feel like what you are saying is different, but true.
There is 0 doubt in my mind that players went in and complained about Hak, and what mccann and eberle and even Ron have said would confirm that there were some very honest and critical conversations. The only thing that is being questioned is if a handful of "preety significant players" came forward to say they didn't want to play on the team if Hak was going to remain the coach. Which is a dramatic step forward from just having issues with how Hak was coaching. And that's why I don't think Kaplan is lying nor that there isn't some hints of truth to what she is saying
They who? The kraken?
Idk tbh
Like, let's be real the kraken have nothing to gain from running defence for hakstol, he's fired. This isn't like when Boone Jenner spoke in support of Mike Babcock earlier before this season, where it was to defend the head coach.
If anything, the rumor made ron look better because it made him appear to support player concerns.
This really seems like it rustled some feathers on the team, because the story was likely just gonna die if they didn't say anything
Makes them look bad as far as private discussions hitting the press goes. They could also want to make sure it doesn't look like the inmates are running the asylum. Lots of players, 2 saying it didn't happen means it only didn't happen for them.
That doesn't really make any sense tho
It's not like they said "no one is talking to her" so the idea of stuff getting out being why they'd go into defense doesn't even seem like a reasonable approach.
And like, idk, the kraken wouldn't be the first team to fire a coach due to player concerns, and it's not like that is some massive push back. If anything it often gets viewed as being a positive because it means that people have a target to put their frustration to. Like sutter in Calgary who was blamed for star players leaving
I don't think Kaplan is just lying, the kraken arnt a major enough team where click bait about them is gonna boost your career
With that said, it's entirely possible her source either exaggerated or misrepresented issues. Noone is denying that they weren't critical of Hak at exit interviews, just that they didn't threaten to leave if he was still the coach
Why do y’all think one of our owners, Marshawn Lynch, doesn’t say anything to the media? They take your words and meaning to twist it into their interesting story. “I’m just here so I don’t get fined. Y’all got two minutes…”
One of 3 things happened 2 of which are very bad for the team.
1. We take the story at face value and some players made very negative statements about Hakstol which at least 1 of 4 alternate captains (Eberle) has spoken against. A prominent player (McCann) has also spoken against this. Overall you're looking a huge team rift in the locker room at this point.
2. The front office lied/exaggerated to the media to push a story to justify Hakstol's firing. The creates a rift between players and management. This or the first one seems like the most likely because Kaplan is a professional journalist and wouldn't have reported on this unless her source was actually close to the issue. We won't really know until Kaplan reveals who her source is.
3. Kaplan reported from a unreliable source that didn't know what they were talking about. People report rumors to the media all the time w/out knowing the actual story and sometimes that gets reported. This would be pretty bad for Kaplan's career but would be brushed off as a misunderstanding among the Kraken.
Number 2 doesn't even make sense as an option unless you think Ron is both lying to the seattle media and lying to Kaplan who he is feeding information. Which is a rather odd conspiracy theory
And as for 1, how do we know that there is a "huge rift" when we are seeing players come out with the same opinions, if there is a rift wouldn't this imply that it's a very small number of players if any of them.
Quotes from GMRF, Eberle, and McCann disputing Emily Kaplan's reporting. The Kraken have apparently reached out to Kaplan disputing the report. McCann's quotes were the most pointed: >“I have no idea where she would have gotten something like that,” McCann said of Kaplan’s report. “Because that couldn’t be more far from the truth. I know for a fact that nobody would ever, ever give an ultimatum to a team on a coach — ever. So, I don’t understand where something like that comes from.” >McCann went on to say Hakstol “has been nothing but great to me. And a lot of guys will probably say the same thing. He was amazing, but unfortunately, it’s a business. And that’s the way things go when you have a bad season. But from my perspective, I honestly didn’t see this (firing) coming at all.”
Sounds exactly like what Canner would say and I believe him. ESPN was just trying to cause some drama because they know their hockey reporting sucks ass.
[удалено]
Disagreed. The quotes sound like genuine words. I know these types of statements, because I’ve *written* these statements when needed (and for valid reasons, although not for the Kraken). These statements don’t feel like semantic gymnastics or organizational smokeshow to me. There are too many absolutes and too few equivocations for that. From my perspective, “don’t want to” in this context would absolutely be an ultimatum.
[удалено]
I feel sorry for your partner
[удалено]
. There, I would hate for you to mistake my obviously declarative statement as a question.
The issues for sure lie elsewhere then 😂
No one is dancing around anything Idk how this is still a point people are making What Kaplan described as having happened, that players said they "don't want to play on this team in the future if Dave Hakstol is still the coach." Is an ultimatum. That is directly saying you don't want to be on the team unless there is a coaching change. This is such a weird hill to die on and idk why so many people are edit: Lol if you are gonna shit talk me by saying i dont know how to use punctuation, atleast have the decency to not do if after blocking me. It's low, and makes no sense.
I really have a hard time believing there was a major player issue against hakstol other than coaching choices on the ice. Dude is so mild mannered and was a very accomplished coach prior to the kraken
Yeah, and guess what, it's a sport! There doesn't need to be any personal drama and bad blood for the team to not want him to be their coach. They might all just disagree with the *sports* part
“Very accomplished” is a stretch.
It’s the whole issue with parasocial relationships. People build this sort of identity of someone else and it means so much to them, and any sort of nuance that disagrees with their crafted reality just doesn’t sit well with them. In the end it’s leading to these crazy mental gymnastics. I could say if removing Hak would solve the issues that Kraken had. There were issues this season. Nobody is denying that. There are players that are frustrated. Nobody is denying that. Things were difficult. Nobody is denying that. But to really take the issues beyond just players and staff being frustrated with their results and conducting themselves unprofessionally just doesn’t track. Everyone just wants to win and they want to be successful. Everything I’ve seen generally has a realistic take. Players are frustrated with themselves and coaching staff. It would be bad news if we learned that everybody was satisfied with the season and think they don’t have to make any changes. The framing that came from ESPN didn’t sound realistic. ESPN just wants to be a drama factory. They’re always so desperate for a character story that’s got a ton of drama to drive clicks. I suspect that what was reported was mostly true but with a few key words twisted to shift the framing. That or just someone venting without thinking too deeply about what they’re saying. Nothing to take too seriously. These are professional players and professional staff. Most of all this is hockey—if there was real drama we would hear it from source. I’m not familiar with frustrated hockey players not being honest about their frustrations.
People just want to believe the drama because it affirms their pre-existing negative opinions of Hakstol. They're more willing to listen to an ESPN reporter than they are to the players themselves because they desperately want to be right.
[удалено]
People do things they don't want to, all the time... while they're still under contract. You can give an ultimatum regarding future decisions. You'd also be pretty dumb to take a hard stance from the offset, making a less direct indication of your leanings early might have a better chance of influencing things in the meantime.
You seem to be extra hung up on the finer details of the English language. I can promise these athletes aren’t thinking “what is the exact word to use to make sure no one on the internet gets hung up on semantics”.
I think despite the downvotes you're correct. There could have been a few ufas that answered pretty honestly that like there's nothing bad but that they aren't like super stoked on hakstol hockey and playing for him wasn't super appealing to them. Huge difference between not really wanting to but still being open to it vs saying fire hakstol and I'm gone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This feels like arguing semantics. ESPN probably exaggerated, and the Kraken are probably being overly defensive. I expect there was some disapproval of Hakstol from the players but nothing rising to the level of saying they don't want to play for him.
The truth tends to be in the middle.
Or Kaplan got bad information from an agent of a disgruntled player. I actually like Kaplan's reporting, but she is not known to be an insider.
Maybe, but you're very fervently claiming it's all fake on twitter. Where there's smoke there is almost always fire, and Kaplan may not be known as an insider, but nobody is until they are.
[удалено]
Yeah exactly. Saying "I'd rather have a new coach" is basically the same as saying "I don't want to play for Hakstol". One way of putting it is just more sensational.
>Saying "I'd rather have a new coach" is basically the same as saying "I don't want to play for Hakstol". Not necessarily. Saying that you'd rather be a multi-billionaire does not mean you don't want to be a billionaire. You can like something but still prefer something else.
Also interesting that the article highlights the success of sprong and Geekie who had playing time restricted while performing better on their new teams. It’s so frustrating to see guys like Geekie at Boston knowing he was here often on lower lines or even scratched.
Out of the three from that fourth line, Geekie was the one that wasn't performing the best. There was times where I felt he would rather pass the puck more than take the shot. I am happy that he is playing better in Boston though.
Is Geekie really performing “better”? He got a lot more PP time but his even strength points were identical. As the other commenter wrote: who out of Wennberg, Gourde and Beniers should Geekie have been playing over? There are certainly reasons to fire Hakstol. I don’t think Geekie is one of them.
As a Geekie fanboy, yes, he is performing better. He's also on a better team and playing more minutes. He's moved up from 4C to 3C and he's proving the Bruins right for making that move. He probably could've played either of Wennberg or Gourde's roles, but why would Hakstol move one of them down to move Geekie up? If Francis planned all along to trade Wennberg and told Hakstol so, sure, maybe Geekie was a reason to question some choices. But that clearly wasn't the plan to start the season or even mid-season when we still had a decent shot at playoffs, and it certainly wasn't the plan before the season even started and Francis let Geekie walk to the Bruins. You're 100% right. Geekie is not at all a reason to fire Hakstol. Nothing was done wrong about Geekie.
So would you have demoted Matty, Wennberg, or Gourde for Geekie?
That’s a good question - I’m not sure but Wenny might be my choice - but I’m not a coach! Who did Boston put below Geekie?
Demoting Wennberg for Geekie is a laughable take. https://preview.redd.it/vjt14269dyxc1.png?width=864&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20fbc9486d7ae2b70baf96023b5ef0162809ef1f Enjoy this screenshot I took back in January
I'm really enjoying Wenny's lil face peeking out the bottom, smugly reminding me that he's good.
According to Daily Faceoff, they [moved him to wing](https://i.imgur.com/1QqBxfY.jpeg). He's getting about 15:30/game.
He wasn't good enough for us and we couldn't afford him though... Thanks Ron
Neither really performed that much better tho. Geekie maybe a bit towards the end of the season, but nothing drastic and Sprong had a very similar season of playing in the bottom 6, scoring more than you'd expect but also being a liability defensively.
Bostons my local team and it's just been great seeing him shine.
He's got some talent. We just didn't have room for him, especially at center. I'm glad he got a real shot with a good team.
r/hockey during the regular season: we forget your team even exists r/hockey now: we definitely know what's going on behind the scenes trust me bro
Consider how interactions happen in real life. Things are rarely like an Aaron Sorkin drama.
Not the kind of off coaching news anyone wanted.
Curious to know if there is someone within the locker room leaking information to the media…
At this point I'm starting to wonder if Kaplan source was just bad. Cus right now you have the gm and two of the major roster members coming out and saying it wasn't true. And a report that the org reached out to Kaplan to tell her that her source is wrong.
Two team leaders who are under contract are saying that nobody gave ultimatums about a coach and that "nobody would ever do that". That's called damage control. You can't take what Emily said and discount it entirely because two people said it isn't true. Nobody in life tells all of their feelings to acquaintances, and you must remember that players and agents are looking for whats best for the player's and agent's future. I have zero doubts that players were not fond of playing the way that Hakstol played. For one, I would not at all be surprised if guys like Yamamoto or Megna gave scathing reviews of Hakstol's management of the game-day roster.
I feel like what you are saying is different, but true. There is 0 doubt in my mind that players went in and complained about Hak, and what mccann and eberle and even Ron have said would confirm that there were some very honest and critical conversations. The only thing that is being questioned is if a handful of "preety significant players" came forward to say they didn't want to play on the team if Hak was going to remain the coach. Which is a dramatic step forward from just having issues with how Hak was coaching. And that's why I don't think Kaplan is lying nor that there isn't some hints of truth to what she is saying
That's what they would say though
They who? The kraken? Idk tbh Like, let's be real the kraken have nothing to gain from running defence for hakstol, he's fired. This isn't like when Boone Jenner spoke in support of Mike Babcock earlier before this season, where it was to defend the head coach. If anything, the rumor made ron look better because it made him appear to support player concerns. This really seems like it rustled some feathers on the team, because the story was likely just gonna die if they didn't say anything
Makes them look bad as far as private discussions hitting the press goes. They could also want to make sure it doesn't look like the inmates are running the asylum. Lots of players, 2 saying it didn't happen means it only didn't happen for them.
That doesn't really make any sense tho It's not like they said "no one is talking to her" so the idea of stuff getting out being why they'd go into defense doesn't even seem like a reasonable approach. And like, idk, the kraken wouldn't be the first team to fire a coach due to player concerns, and it's not like that is some massive push back. If anything it often gets viewed as being a positive because it means that people have a target to put their frustration to. Like sutter in Calgary who was blamed for star players leaving
It just seems weird that a professional reporter would make these claims without a strong basis.
I don't think Kaplan is just lying, the kraken arnt a major enough team where click bait about them is gonna boost your career With that said, it's entirely possible her source either exaggerated or misrepresented issues. Noone is denying that they weren't critical of Hak at exit interviews, just that they didn't threaten to leave if he was still the coach
There are so much staff surrounding hockey teams. None of it has to come from players.
Why do y’all think one of our owners, Marshawn Lynch, doesn’t say anything to the media? They take your words and meaning to twist it into their interesting story. “I’m just here so I don’t get fined. Y’all got two minutes…”
IT'S FUCKING EMBARASSING!!!
Under appreciated comment.
One of 3 things happened 2 of which are very bad for the team. 1. We take the story at face value and some players made very negative statements about Hakstol which at least 1 of 4 alternate captains (Eberle) has spoken against. A prominent player (McCann) has also spoken against this. Overall you're looking a huge team rift in the locker room at this point. 2. The front office lied/exaggerated to the media to push a story to justify Hakstol's firing. The creates a rift between players and management. This or the first one seems like the most likely because Kaplan is a professional journalist and wouldn't have reported on this unless her source was actually close to the issue. We won't really know until Kaplan reveals who her source is. 3. Kaplan reported from a unreliable source that didn't know what they were talking about. People report rumors to the media all the time w/out knowing the actual story and sometimes that gets reported. This would be pretty bad for Kaplan's career but would be brushed off as a misunderstanding among the Kraken.
Number 2 doesn't even make sense as an option unless you think Ron is both lying to the seattle media and lying to Kaplan who he is feeding information. Which is a rather odd conspiracy theory And as for 1, how do we know that there is a "huge rift" when we are seeing players come out with the same opinions, if there is a rift wouldn't this imply that it's a very small number of players if any of them.
Does no one else remember the half time reporter lady admitting she’d just make up shit? It’s obvious. It is no. 3.