Alumni In the Pros: January 2012

[ugarte]

Not our alum, but certainly a guy with a significant (negative) association with Cornell hockey.

This whole thing makes me sad.

How so -- the fact that he chose not to participate in the White House visit or the fact that he might be "persecuted" because of it?

That politics have gotten so poisoned that a person would feel it worthwhile to snub the President and that some would deem him a hero for it. I can't say I'd have acted differently if I were at all talented and found myself invited to the Bush White House but I also wouldn't put on a martyr's shawl if someone said I was a grandstanding prick.

Can we call you a prick even if you're not invited to the White House? ::flipc::

This is still America, right?

[ftyuv]

Not our alum, but certainly a guy with a significant (negative) association with Cornell hockey.

This whole thing makes me sad.

How so -- the fact that he chose not to participate in the White House visit or the fact that he might be "persecuted" because of it?

That politics have gotten so poisoned that a person would feel it worthwhile to snub the President and that some would deem him a hero for it. I can't say I'd have acted differently if I were at all talented and found myself invited to the Bush White House but I also wouldn't put on a martyr's shawl if someone said I was a grandstanding prick.

Can we call you a prick even if you're not invited to the White House? ::flipc::

This is still America, right?

Depends who you ask!

[Josh '99]

Not our alum, but certainly a guy with a significant (negative) association with Cornell hockey.

This whole thing makes me sad.

How so -- the fact that he chose not to participate in the White House visit or the fact that he might be "persecuted" because of it?

For me, the worst was the part where the Bruins won the Stanley Cup.

[RichH]

Long story short, it's fun when you can root for an athlete as a person as well as for his skills, and Timmy's taken that away from me.

Whatever, I always liked Bergy a bit more, anyway. If he turns out to be a jerk, that'll be a big problem. Well, as big a problem as can be when it's about watching sports.

It can suck being a fan sometimes, but fan psychology is pretty interesting.  Living in an area with an unholy mix of Whalers/Bruins/Rangers fans all swirling about, I sometimes tell my recollections of the mid-90s UVM teams and Thomas's exploits I saw firsthand.  Bruins fans tend to (expectedly) get defensive, and I've heard the "people can change" line from others. I'm going to leave the whole political and personality aspects aside, and comment on his career, despite how enjoyable the smugness is that he's being outed as the petulant baby I remember.

It's remarkable that this guy is around to even make these headlines, really. You have to imagine that at the time the Bruins signed him, it was going to be his last shot.  Who picks up a 32-year-old journeyman goaltender who just had his worst professional statistical year at the IHL level and bounced around the Swedish leagues?  A team desperate for a goaltender, that's who.  The Bruins really had nobody to turn to, and scooped him off the scrap heap.  It really was a "right place, right time," kind of situation similar to Moulson when he moved to the Islanders.  I don't know what happened to make him into a Vezina winner with NHL stats better than when he was overrated at UVM ;-) but he made the most of the opportunity, and capped it with an incredible run to the Stanley Cup at age 37!  You did get the feeling that Bruins management were always looking to dump him if he faltered, but he didn't.

Historically, it's very difficult for collegiate goaltenders to take a fast-track to the NHL. It's been true of all the recent CU standouts ("System" jokes aside), but also for collegiate stars like Danis, Quick, Howard, Montoya, Conklin, Goehring, Koenig, (to cherry-pick some memorable names from the NCAA All-American Teams) all wallowed for 4-6 YEARS in the minors/Europe before getting a shot, if they got one at all.  Elliott, Miller, and Turco all had to wait about 2 years before earning significant NHL time after college, which seem to be the exceptions.  It seems you have to really luck into the right situation.  Luck and skill are both needed to make it.  LeNeveu seemed to be stifled with the Coyotes. Scrivens got NHL time earlier this season due to injury emergencies, and I hope managed to turn some heads. I think most top collegiate goaltenders given the opportunity, can succeed at the NHL...they just have to be given the chance to fail and adjust.

[/incoherent rambling]

Anyway, Tim Thomas. A remarkably unlikely career, petulant baby.  Then and now. :-D

[ftyuv]

Long story short, it's fun when you can root for an athlete as a person as well as for his skills, and Timmy's taken that away from me.

Whatever, I always liked Bergy a bit more, anyway. If he turns out to be a jerk, that'll be a big problem. Well, as big a problem as can be when it's about watching sports.

It can suck being a fan sometimes, but fan psychology is pretty interesting.  Living in an area with an unholy mix of Whalers/Bruins/Rangers fans all swirling about, I sometimes tell my recollections of the mid-90s UVM teams and Thomas's exploits I saw firsthand.  Bruins fans tend to (expectedly) get defensive, and I've heard the "people can change" line from others. I'm going to leave the whole political and personality aspects aside, and comment on his career, despite how enjoyable the smugness is that he's being outed as the petulant baby I remember.

It's remarkable that this guy is around to even make these headlines, really. You have to imagine that at the time the Bruins signed him, it was going to be his last shot.  Who picks up a 32-year-old journeyman goaltender who just had his worst professional statistical year at the IHL level and bounced around the Swedish leagues?  A team desperate for a goaltender, that's who.  The Bruins really had nobody to turn to, and scooped him off the scrap heap.  It really was a "right place, right time," kind of situation similar to Moulson when he moved to the Islanders.  I don't know what happened to make him into a Vezina winner with NHL stats better than when he was overrated at UVM ;-) but he made the most of the opportunity, and capped it with an incredible run to the Stanley Cup at age 37!  You did get the feeling that Bruins management were always looking to dump him if he faltered, but he didn't.

Historically, it's very difficult for collegiate goaltenders to take a fast-track to the NHL. It's been true of all the recent CU standouts ("System" jokes aside), but also for collegiate stars like Danis, Quick, Howard, Montoya, Conklin, Goehring, Koenig, (to cherry-pick some memorable names from the NCAA All-American Teams) all wallowed for 4-6 YEARS in the minors/Europe before getting a shot, if they got one at all.  Elliott, Miller, and Turco all had to wait about 2 years before earning significant NHL time after college, which seem to be the exceptions.  It seems you have to really luck into the right situation.  Luck and skill are both needed to make it.  LeNeveu seemed to be stifled with the Coyotes. Scrivens got NHL time earlier due to injury emergencies. I think most top collegiate goaltenders given the opportunity, can succeed at the NHL...they just have to be given the chance to fail and adjust.

[/incoherent rambling]

Anyway, Tim Thomas. A remarkably unlikely career, petulant baby.  Then and now. :-D

Agreed on most parts, though I think management were a bit more forgiving than you suggest. The season before last he was pretty mediocre, and many Bruins fans (present company included) felt his time was up, his age was showing, and it was time to move on. Management stuck with him, and last year he showed some improvement over that mediocre season.

Also, I'd to point out that it's not the first time Boston caught a good break from an oh-crap-we-need-a-backup situation. I only mention it since it'll be relevant in a couple weeks when the Pats win the Superbowl. [/troll]

[Lauren '06]

Now having read the articles, his actual remarks on not going are a lot less offensive/poisonously political than I had assumed based on the comments. I can agree with others that it looks like an overly self-important move for something blandly ceremonial, but mostly this gets a shrug from me.

However, I'm very interested to learn about his exploits in the NCAA, if any of you would be so kind as to regale the young ones among us...

[KeithK]

I think that's part of the heart of the question -- was this event a stage that had been granted to him? Or was it a stage granted to his team, which he then usurped?

He's a member of the team.  And by granted I really mean given his moment of fame when the general public is aware of his statements, not that he was granted a White House visit.

If he had showed up at the White House and then disrupted the event by shouting political slogans until security dragged him away that would have been inappropriate and flat out rude.  By choosing to skip the event and issuing a statement he made his point in a way that was minimally disruptive to his team.  Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[ftyuv]

I think that's part of the heart of the question -- was this event a stage that had been granted to him? Or was it a stage granted to his team, which he then usurped?

He's a member of the team.  And by granted I really mean given his moment of fame when the general public is aware of his statements, not that he was granted a White House visit.

I'm a member of my company, but it doesn't mean all that is my company's is mine.

If he had showed up at the White House and then disrupted the event by shouting political slogans until security dragged him away that would have been inappropriate and flat out rude.  By choosing to skip the event and issuing a statement he made his point in a way that was minimally disruptive to his team.  Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Depends on one's definition of minimally disruptive, I suppose.

[Ben]

I think that's part of the heart of the question -- was this event a stage that had been granted to him? Or was it a stage granted to his team, which he then usurped?

He's a member of the team.  And by granted I really mean given his moment of fame when the general public is aware of his statements, not that he was granted a White House visit.

If he had showed up at the White House and then disrupted the event by shouting political slogans until security dragged him away that would have been inappropriate and flat out rude.  By choosing to skip the event and issuing a statement he made his point in a way that was minimally disruptive to his team.  Seems pretty reasonable to me.

He obviously had the right to not go. And I have the right to think he's a dick for not going.

What complicates it is that he didn't announce his absence or the reason for it in advance. That's disrespectful and took the spotlight away from his team, which was where it belonged.

[KeithK]

I think that's part of the heart of the question -- was this event a stage that had been granted to him? Or was it a stage granted to his team, which he then usurped?

He's a member of the team.  And by granted I really mean given his moment of fame when the general public is aware of his statements, not that he was granted a White House visit.

If he had showed up at the White House and then disrupted the event by shouting political slogans until security dragged him away that would have been inappropriate and flat out rude.  By choosing to skip the event and issuing a statement he made his point in a way that was minimally disruptive to his team.  Seems pretty reasonable to me.

He obviously had the right to not go. And I have the right to think he's a dick for not going.

What complicates it is that he didn't announce his absence or the reason for it in advance. That's disrespectful and took the spotlight away from his team, which was where it belonged.

So it would be less disrespectful had he made a big deal of announcing in advance his decision not to go and reasons?  I think quietly skipping the event is probably the most respectful way to do it if he didn't want to attend. But YMMV.

[steveb]

I've been a Bruins fan since The Goal, and maybe I'll be one again after Teabagger Timmay retires (I don't object to his views, just the way he expressed them with the White House snub). In the meantime, I'm going to extend my love of Cornell hockey by rooting for Ottawa, San Jose, and the Islanders.

[Weder]

What complicates it is that he didn't announce his absence or the reason for it in advance. That's disrespectful and took the spotlight away from his team, which was where it belonged.

I thought the Bruins GM said he had known for several months that Thomas was going to skip the event. Or did you mean that Thomas didn't make a public announcement about his decision?

[Ben]

He obviously had the right to not go. And I have the right to think he's a dick for not going.

What complicates it is that he didn't announce his absence or the reason for it in advance. That's disrespectful and took the spotlight away from his team, which was where it belonged.

So it would be less disrespectful had he made a big deal of announcing in advance his decision not to go and reasons?  I think quietly skipping the event is probably the most respectful way to do it if he didn't want to attend. But YMMV.

No, it would have been less disrespectful if he'd said so beforehand and not turned it into a political dispute. Just a simple "I will not be attending this event and I have no further comment" several days or a week before would have done fine. Instead he stole the show, intentionally or not.

[Swampy]

He obviously had the right to not go. And I have the right to think he's a dick for not going.

What complicates it is that he didn't announce his absence or the reason for it in advance. That's disrespectful and took the spotlight away from his team, which was where it belonged.

So it would be less disrespectful had he made a big deal of announcing in advance his decision not to go and reasons?  I think quietly skipping the event is probably the most respectful way to do it if he didn't want to attend. But YMMV.

No, it would have been less disrespectful if he'd said so beforehand and not turned it into a political dispute. Just a simple "I will not be attending this event and I have no further comment" several days or a week before would have done fine. Instead he stole the show, intentionally or not.

He used the event and his stature to make a loud political statement. Athletes have been doing this for some time. People can think he's a dick for doing it, but this is consistent only if all one condemns all political use of athletic celebrity equally.

[Robb]

He obviously had the right to not go. And I have the right to think he's a dick for not going.

What complicates it is that he didn't announce his absence or the reason for it in advance. That's disrespectful and took the spotlight away from his team, which was where it belonged.

So it would be less disrespectful had he made a big deal of announcing in advance his decision not to go and reasons?  I think quietly skipping the event is probably the most respectful way to do it if he didn't want to attend. But YMMV.

No, it would have been less disrespectful if he'd said so beforehand and not turned it into a political dispute. Just a simple "I will not be attending this event and I have no further comment" several days or a week before would have done fine. Instead he stole the show, intentionally or not.

He used the event and his stature to make a loud political statement. Athletes have been doing this for some time. People can think he's a dick for doing it, but this is consistent only if all one condemns all political use of athletic celebrity equally.

Nonsense.  It is entirely possible for an athlete to make a political statement in an honorable, humble, respectful way.  Thomas's antics appear (haven't cared enough to read the details) to have been none of these.  It's not an athlete's making a political statement that is a problem, it's a JERK's making a political statement.