Plashke on Corvo

jfont
11-05-2003, 05:17 AM
http://www.latimes.com/sports/hockey/nhl/kings/la-sp-plaschke5nov05,1,4914399.column?coll=la-headlines-sports-nhl-kings

By virtue of their ownership of Staples Center and their hold on one of the most passionate fan bases in town, they have a huge investment in this community and its standards. Deciding that felonious violence toward women is worth only a week on the bench is lowering that bar to limbo-expert levels. Thirty-six years without a Stanley Cup is easier to swallow.

Three games?


thoughts?

guzmania
11-05-2003, 06:06 AM
Realizing that Kobe is only "accused" of ****, I'd ask Bill what his punisment would be if convicted? Drawn and quartered on Figueroa? Let's see, he is, at least, proven to be a cheatin dog (DNA) as far as his marriage vows go. Just imagine Bill, the Lakers go-to guy, who's on those Nutella packages and tennis shoe ads, dippin his wick when it should be trimmed and burning? What punishment for him?

Does the guy ever watch law and order? Sometimes people plead just to get the suspended sentence. I think Corvo was wrong, on some level, which is, in reality, unknown to me (and Bill) and his actions are indefensible. He is taking his punishment, not only the punishment dealt out by the courts, but also punishment inflicted by his team. Maybe I didn't see Joes whole statement but the part I did see had no mention of regret directed at his accuser and victim, that I thought was a bit cheesy.

Why does the L.A. Times hate the Kings? They always have. They are wrong. Bill is wrong. Clam up pal.

LuckyLUC20
11-05-2003, 06:48 AM
Anytime Plaschke talks about the Kings, it's always negative... so, no surprise here.

IGM
11-05-2003, 06:53 AM
The problem with this article is that it is written by a total hack that has no business writting about a sport that the only thing he knows about is what he reads on the AP wire and then steals for his own.

Loud mouthed P.O.S. Guz, You ask a solid question as BP has had his toungue up Bryants tail from the start of this thing and I would be more than willing to bet that IF he (kb)plead down to a lesser charge to make the trial go away that BP would say something like "he has paid enough already in the court of public opinion and sponsorship losses and that along with what the courts have given him should be enough". By the way, if Plaschke is reading this DON'T STEAL IT YOU FISHWRAP HACK!

Corvo plead out on the case so unfortunately we don't get to know what exactly happened or how guilty he actually was. He may have done everything he is accused of and if that were the case then he should have gone to prison or he may have done less. The truth is that we the fans OR Bill Plaschke don't know what happened so we HAVE to accept what we have heard and what has been done and let it go.

I also like the duplicitous feelings that some of us share towards our sportsmen. On one hand we will argue that they are people just like us doing a job and shouldn't recieve any special treatment and on the other we demand that their teams punish them for what they do away from the game. I understand the "morals clauses" that our "celebrities" have in their contracts and while I think they are total BS I can understand why they are there. The people hiring these people have to protect their investments and are really just saying "don't do anything to make us look bad" away from the "game". The problem I have with it is that IF we are going to have them sign morals clauses then when one of them gets into trouble THEIR EMPLOYER should pay for their court costs and treat them like the military treats its EMPLOYEES.

Its called double jepordy. In the military if you commit a crime away from your service then you know for a fact that you are going to pay again when they get ahold of you because it is in your contract with them. So, if you do get in trouble while in the military, you have the right to request (and usually recieve) a military lawyer to argue your case in public court for you. They treat you like you are their property (which you are when you sign the contract) and that they have a vested interest in you. When you get back they do what they see fit to you based on what you did wrong and how it applies to the situation.

With our atheletes, we tell them to behave and then when they get into trouble the teams (fill in your favorite industry) back off and take the "say nothing until we know if you are guilty" approach. Then, when the person comes back they dispense a BS punishment to save face.

My long point (as usual) is that we the fans NOR the owners can have it both ways. Either these people are just people payed to play a game (or play make believe whatever) or they are signing a deal that makes BOTH parties responsible for eachother. Sadly it doesn't work that way.

If I were King I would have said, "What Joe Corvo is alleged to have done happened away from our team in his private life and we refuse to be responsible for what these grown men do on their off time". "As for what he is alleged to have done I find that type of action morally reprehensive and shameful and wouldn't ever condone that type of behavior". I would leave his actions, as a legal adult, in his private life, his. The way it is now you are just sitting on several time bombs hoping that you draw what you are paying for from these people before they go off on you. Some will be great guys like 99 who do everything right, while others will be deviant. It is EXACTLY like the rest of us. No better, no worse.

I have a decent number of employees that work for me and if I found out one of them had done what JC is alleged to have done I would have asked them about it and then let it go. As long as what happened didn't take time away from their ability to do their job or impact their ability to perform their tasks as instructed I, BY LAW, couldn't do anything about it. EVEN IF I DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY DID. The law protects them from me firing them because they have done something in their private life that I don't agree with.

Why is it different for these guys? They are employees of a company. Sure they are public employees but still, the laws of the land SHOULD apply to them in the same manner that it does to all of us.

Face Wash
11-05-2003, 07:47 AM
Well, I'm no stranger to descenting opinions, but first...

I never read Plaschke... I think he's one step below TJ Simers on the Magnanomous ***** scale, and I'm not saying he's right or wrong here. I do believe that when taken into consideration his "PAST CRIMINAL RECORD" (or lack thereof) which obviously the District Attorney and Judge did when they both AGREED to this very light sentence, the Kings were not wrong to do the same in the case of professional punishment.

However, my descent is that I WISH the Kings would make a statement to the professional athletes on their team and others by saying "we're not going to tolerate the lack of professionalism on or off the ice. Ultimately it will cost your place in our city and on our team"

I said all along that if convicted, I never want to see him in a Kings' uniform again and that I'd have a hard time rooting for him if this was the case (I feel the same way about Kobe, BTW). In fact, I'd have a hard time not booing the guy at games, because frankly, I don't want convicted felons on my teams... and I can't even imagine why the Kings would want one, irregardless of their current personnel/injury situation.

Considering the sentence he got, 3 games off without pay was in line with that. But I think the Kings should remove him from the team via trade if at all possible.

Fans spend too much time booing the likes of Rob Blake, trying to make him feel uncomfortable when a guy like Joe Corvo should never be made to feel comfortable in LA by the fans IMO. I'd like to think the fans have higher standards than to support a guy who has felonious anger issues, no matter his lack of a criminal record. Honestly, how do you cheer for Joe Corvo after a goal or a big hit, then turn around and talk to your kid about why what he did was wrong?

The nature of his crime and what I perceive personally as a rather cheesy recent public statement/apology have lead me to this opinion. I agree with the punishment based on what the courts gave him, but The Kings need to send a message and get rid of this guy.

David A. Rainer
11-05-2003, 07:50 AM
I have a decent number of employees that work for me and if I found out one of them had done what JC is alleged to have done I would have asked them about it and then let it go. As long as what happened didn't take time away from their ability to do their job or impact their ability to perform their tasks as instructed I, BY LAW, couldn't do anything about it. EVEN IF I DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY DID. The law protects them from me firing them because they have done something in their private life that I don't agree with.

Why is it different for these guys? They are employees of a company. Sure they are public employees but still, the laws of the land SHOULD apply to them in the same manner that it does to all of us.

Exactly which law is that? "At will" employment means that I (as an employer) can fire my employees for whatever reason, even something as trivial as my not liking the color of their hair. The law only protects them against firing for reasons of race, religion, age, etc. If my employee was convicted of a felony (or even if he was just charged with a crime and not convicted), damn straight I can fire him. The only thing that can save him is if he is part of a union where the CBA might protect him from a firing without due process.

And as for Plaschke... If Kobe was convicted of r_a_p_e, Plaschke would say the same thing, that Kobe needs to be "fired". But he would only be doing that to sell papers not because he actually believed it.

Should Corvo be "fired"? I don't know. I wouldn't want a hard and fast rule that all players convicted of felonies should or shouldn't be fired. I like to leave that up to each owner to decide. I would understand if DT cut him, I would understand if he didn't.

zeppelin97
11-05-2003, 07:56 AM
Doesn't suprise me plashcke wrote that article. Its very typical of him. I think hes just trying to stir the pot or making some noise. Hes the same idiot that spun a simple interview with brett butler, and turned it into a bagging on mike piazza (to the suprise of butler).

Plaschke is seriously demented. Actually, most sports writers are in LA and orange county. Read JA adande as he seems to be a writer that has a level head on his shoulders (whicker for the OC register is good too).

agentfouser
11-05-2003, 08:54 AM
i should write for the times; i was waaaaaaayyyy ahead of plashke. http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?threadid=23544

anyway, i think that both sides have a point. on the one hand, what business do the kings or the nhl have in meting out punishments beyond what he recieved in a court of law? but at the same time, is it appropriate for the kings, who market themselves to families and children, to employ convicted felons? what if corvo was sentenced to jail for six months, came out, and was then re-employed by the kings? it could be said that he had then paid his debt to society and that he should have a clean slate, and that he should therefore have every right to pursue employment.

whatever other moral issues abound, i think the kings could have avoided a lot of trouble if they had suspended him for more like thirty games. that wouldn't have solved any ethical/moral dilemmas, but it would have saved the kings some bad press and i think people would be more inclined to accept corvo again.

guzmania
11-05-2003, 08:57 AM
Fans spend too much time booing the likes of Rob Blake, trying to make him feel uncomfortable when a guy like Joe Corvo should never be made to feel comfortable in LA by the fans IMO. I'd like to think the fans have higher standards than to support a guy who has felonious anger issues, no matter his lack of a criminal record. Honestly, how do you cheer for Joe Corvo after a goal or a big hit, then turn around and talk to your kid about why what he did was wrong?



Well this part is tough. People by nature make mistakes. A mistake can devestate your life. Danny Heatley made a mistake. Someone died. Joe Corvo made a mistake that hurt another human being and offends society's sense of right and wrong. He's going to pay a much higher price than Mr. Heatley. Is it just for one guy to have a felony around his neck for the rest of his life and the other to walk (hobble) away with no centure from society? Yes, but just the felony tag is not enough to deep six the guy IMO. (I am sure Danny has beat himself up repeatedly for the loss of his friend.)

Craig McTavish (Oilers coach) was convicted of drunk driving and manslaughter. He did his time. He played again (although not in Boston) and has proved to be a solid citizen. Shouldn't he have been given a second chance? Tough decision.

To attack a woman, as Joe plead guilty to doing, is incomprehensible for me personally. I am lucky, my dad never hit my mom. But I realise now that this may not even be the norm. For some reason Joe never learned that this is unacceptable. Hopefully he will "get it" in counselling. I can't throw the first stone, or indeed any stone at all.

Kings Fanatic
11-05-2003, 08:58 AM
Personally I love Plaschke and he is in no way a hack. I don't think there was anything wrong with this article. Nobody approves of what Corvo did and you all must admit that he got off pretty lightly. Corvo better do his anger management stuff and be a model citizen in the years to come if he wants to gain the respect of the fans or the sports writers.

Capn Brown
11-05-2003, 09:12 AM
Plashke's a ******** and just writes stuff that's controversial so people will acknowledge him as "chief" ********.

That said, I see Corvo's situation now somewhat akin to Jere Kharalati's two years ago. A d-man with demons getting little or no ice time (remember, the org has been high on Holland, so there's little reason to sit him over Corvo).

I can see Corvo being swapped for Denis Gauthier. We've got enough offense, how about a little d?

Offensive d-men:
Modry
Visnovski
(soon-to-be) Gleason
(wanna-be) Strbak
(will-one-day-be) Grebeshkov
(used-to-be) Muir
(never-will-be) Zizka

Defensive d-men:
Norstrom
Miller
Holland
Seeley? (leads the Monarchs with a +6)
Norton (out for a while)


More d is required.....

Face Wash
11-05-2003, 09:31 AM
Well this part is tough. People by nature make mistakes. A mistake can devestate your life. Danny Heatley made a mistake. Someone died. Joe Corvo made a mistake that hurt another human being and offends society's sense of right and wrong. He's going to pay a much higher price than Mr. Heatley. Is it just for one guy to have a felony around his neck for the rest of his life and the other to walk (hobble) away with no centure from society? Yes, but just the felony tag is not enough to deep six the guy IMO. (I am sure Danny has beat himself up repeatedly for the loss of his friend.)

Craig McTavish (Oilers coach) was convicted of drunk driving and manslaughter. He did his time. He played again (although not in Boston) and has proved to be a solid citizen. Shouldn't he have been given a second chance? Tough decision.

To attack a woman, as Joe plead guilty to doing, is incomprehensible for me personally. I am lucky, my dad never hit my mom. But I realise now that this may not even be the norm. For some reason Joe never learned that this is unacceptable. Hopefully he will "get it" in counselling. I can't throw the first stone, or indeed any stone at all.

Guz, very thoughtful response... but IMO the intent of Corvo versus Heatley's intent are the difference. Plus, legally to this point, no charges are being pressed against Heatley, in fact Snyder's parent's have been vocal in their support of Heatley. Not saying a crime wasn't committed, but the intent wasn't to commit one, there was no alcohol, he was just reckless, which while awful and tragic, isn't necessarily a felony.

And while MacTavish paid his debt to society, Corvo really hasn't. He has a suspended sentence that will be invoked if he screws up again, and he will have community service and counseling which he hasn't done yet...

Bottomline as I see it, he went out one night and as a public figure of some nature, even in his private life, when he goes out, he's a representative of the Monarchs/Kings... and he has to conduct himself accordingly IMO. He's embarrassed everyone that has anything to do with either organization including the fans of each organization, his own family and friends.

So he's pretty much failed in a lot of ways with his plea bargain and like I said, I think the Kings should do the right thing in my view and trade him at some point.

Tbagger
11-05-2003, 10:57 AM
I cant stand Plashke.


There, I Put as much thought into that post as he puts into his articles. What a lame ass.

jfont
11-05-2003, 11:18 AM
Guz, very thoughtful response... but IMO the intent of Corvo versus Heatley's intent are the difference. Plus, legally to this point, no charges are being pressed against Heatley, in fact Snyder's parent's have been vocal in their support of Heatley. Not saying a crime wasn't committed, but the intent wasn't to commit one, there was no alcohol, he was just reckless, which while awful and tragic, isn't necessarily a felony.

And while MacTavish paid his debt to society, Corvo really hasn't. He has a suspended sentence that will be invoked if he screws up again, and he will have community service and counseling which he hasn't done yet...

Bottomline as I see it, he went out one night and as a public figure of some nature, even in his private life, when he goes out, he's a representative of the Monarchs/Kings... and he has to conduct himself accordingly IMO. He's embarrassed everyone that has anything to do with either organization including the fans of each organization, his own family and friends.

So he's pretty much failed in a lot of ways with his plea bargain and like I said, I think the Kings should do the right thing in my view and trade him at some point.
FW, we've had this discussion months ago.

Sure corvo hasn't paid his debts to society...yet...time can only tell what type of person he would become after this. and as i've said before, i'd like to give people a second chance...everyone makes mistakes. i've done things i'm not proud of (not the illegal type ok) but i wouldn't want that act to be the definition of me. unless you're an axe murderer or a r-a-p-ist, same goes for you and mr. corvo...and everyone else for that matter.

again, once you're convicted in this society...and you've done your time (or trying to do your time) you are also convicted a 2nd time once you've paid your debts...i think once you've paid your debts you should be given that chance. do you know that convicted felons in some states aren't allowed to vote? or, do you know its near impossible for them to get loans to buy cars and houses? not to mention the stigma you get when filling out applications for employment and have to indicate that you have a criminal record...its unfair...but i guess those things are secondary when alls people rant about is just to trade the guy...

IGM
11-05-2003, 11:49 AM
Have you ever been sued by an ex employee for wrongful firing? I have and it was over my making an example of them for thier constantly campaigning about the way they where being discriminated against (even though they had the highest paying job in thier position at the company) and talking about their "legal troubles" at work. They had been arrested for posession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute while on vacation. They constantly talked about it during work time. While on the clock. Stopping everyone that came around them to talk about how I was (to use their words) "The Devil" and that none of "us" were to be trusted and that they had been framed by a racially biased world . What they were doing was not only something that I wasn't paying them to do while on the clock but it also was totally against what I, that persons employer, believed to be the truth and I didn't want to hear it anywhere, especially my company. I asked them to stop doing it while on my premises. I asked them to leave the other employees alone as they had come to me and told me that this was becomming a problem.

Your response sounds just like my lawyers did when I called and asked them about the firing. "Sure you can fire them, California is an at will state and has been for a few years now. You don't need a reason to let them go". So I did. I was sued. I lost. I had to pay that person back wages,pain and suffering and reinstate them. I was told that while Cali is an at will state that what I was doing was censorship and that it didn't matter if they weren't doing their job or if they were trying to make other employees of mine not do theirs. I wasn't allowing that employee the right to self expression and that since I didn't document their actions and counsel them about it (even though IN COURT that person totally admitted to what I had accused them of)and have them sign a form telling them that if they continued with their current course of actions that they would be terminated that it was my fault. On top of that, the judge "urged" me to spend a few days at the museum of tolorence to learn the plight of some of the people who live around me. The judge doesn't know me. Doesn't know who I am married to. Doesn't know what reservation my mother and her family came from. Didn't know anything about me but that is another story.

The "law" in the end doesn't mean that we in cali are an at will state. Sure, it says that we are, but that doesn't mean anything.

Oh, and the employee showed up for work and quit two days later. (thank god)

My point is that (as I told the judge) I had no problem with them saying any of it during thier break time or off the clock. I didn't approve of that person taking my other employees time away from doing thier jobs to talk about all of the trouble they were in and how evil I was when all I ever did was employ the person. That person went to trial on the drug charges awhile ago and not only was found guilty but also was allowed to plea down to a lesser charge of some sort and was given 6 mos in jail and had to pay something like a $5000 fine as well as three years of community service.

I guess that I am not really contesting your theory of our being at will state, I am just saying that the law really doesn't mean anything at all. I lost big time as well as mine and their court costs. I had hired a very well thought of atty who said that "sometimes you get a bad judge" and that was that.

So, even after that I deffend my ex employees right as well as anyone elses to be stupid in their off time. I wouldn't have thought of firing them for being charged with a crime as long as they were a good employee. I believe that what they do in their time off the clock IS THEIR BUSINESS and not mine. Sports teams and their players are the same thing. No different in my opinion. That is why I laugh everytime one screws up and why I laugh when "fans" get all riled about it. What do you expect? Do you think these people are supermen (and women if you want to include other areas) who are above making a mistake? What right do I or anyone have to demand that an employee live up to my personal standards in their off time.

What if PA was a devout Mormon and he expected players to live by those laws. Would it be within his rights? If one of them broke his curfew by playing on Sunday or having sex with someone they weren't married to would it be within their rights to discipline that person? Of course not. This is the same thing. You have to be able to seperate what a player does off the ice from what they do while on the clock. We all have different beliefs and we all have different morals and to try to enforce yours on someone for something that they do away from your employment is more akin to slavery than it is to employment.

I can understand when a company hires a well known person to rep their products having a morals clause because all they are doing is using that persons image to sell a product. The person isn't directly going to be held responsible for selling anything except their image and I feel that the company is entiteled to having that image be the same that it was the day they hired them throughout the length of their deal.

Sports is totally different though. You are paying a person to perform on the ice (in our case) and what they are paid is directly related to how they perform on the ice. NOT by what you think of them as people. Look at the examples of ALL of the sports figures that have gotten away with everything without ever being disciplined by their teams. They get punished by the law like the rest of us. There is no reason ANYONE should have to worry about having to be punished a second time. That is why I wrote about double jepordy. It is unfair and wrong. We the people as a society decide what we feel is right and wrong. Once someone does something that goes against those decisions they are punished. What gives anyone else the right to punish someone a second time for something that we the people have already punished them for?

If YOU don't like what Corvo did as a fan you can show your disgust by not going to the games. Not giving the team your money. Write Corvo a letter. You have several alternatives. IF the team decides that he is playing well enough to stay but that they are getting too much fan pressure then they can trade him. To further punish him so that a handful of fans will "feel better" about the team is just wrong.

What if back when sodomy was against the law a player was charged with that. It is against allot of peoples moral beliefs and at the time the law. After that person went through the courst and was handed out whatever punishment was due them (sadly) would it be right for the team to then stick it to them as well?

I hate the idea that Corvo "might" have done what he is accused of and if in a civil trial it comes out that he is found guilty then I will continue to think of him as a coward. That is where it ends for me. I am a member of the citizens of the US and the system that we use to discipline those of us who break the rules will have done what it felt was necessary. That is enough for me.

David A. Rainer
11-05-2003, 12:02 PM
Your response sounds just like my lawyers did when I called and asked them about the firing. "Sure you can fire them, California is an at will state and has been for a few years now. You don't need a reason to let them go". So I did. I was sued. I lost. I had to pay that person back wages,pain and suffering and reinstate them. I was told that while Cali is an at will state that what I was doing was censorship and that it didn't matter if they weren't doing their job or if they were trying to make other employees of mine not do theirs. I wasn't allowing that employee the right to self expression and that since I didn't document their actions and counsel them about it (even though IN COURT that person totally admitted to what I had accused them of)and have them sign a form telling them that if they continued with their current course of actions that they would be terminated that it was my fault. On top of that, the judge "urged" me to spend a few days at the museum of tolorence to learn the plight of some of the people who live around me. The judge doesn't know me. Doesn't know who I am married to. Doesn't know what reservation my mother and her family came from. Didn't know anything about me but that is another story.


It sounds like the judge or jury found that you had either discriminated against them based on race (I'd need more specifics to understand exactly what was going on). That is completely different and you can't fire someone for that. But all else being equal, you can fire someone for being convicted of a felony.

In all truth, if that's what happened, you've got a "Crusader Judge". I externed while I was in law school with a labor law firm, and consequently have seen hundreds of these cases, and I've never seen one turn out that way. Were they represented by a union? Your judge had his head up his arse! Do you remember which judge you got?

IGM
11-05-2003, 01:12 PM
Hey DFA. I have been looking through records to see if I could find the judges name. My atty said that he too thought that I had been wronged and that he hadn't seen that happen before. He did say that he felt that I was being discriminated against but niether he nor the judge said anything about my discriminating my ex employee. The term "crusader judge" sounds familliar. My brother works for the DA office and he has explained to me that judges are ex lawyers. (laymens terms) Why would they be that way if they had to actually walk the fine line of arguing the law. I guess that they, like the rest of us are prone to making mistakes. Or (like in my case) taking myself too seriously.

If I find out who the judge was I will pm you.