Edited Oct. 27, 2021 at 4:09 p.m.
I appreciate the long thought out post, your perspective here, and asking me for my opinion.
1) Name/Logo: The Sauk nation has come out in support of the name, logo, recognition of a warrior that is a rich part of their legacy, and bringing attention to their tribe and leader is honorable as far as what I've read in statements from the Sauk people. This is very different then the Washington Redskins as that name is derogatory. Now the wider Indian groups, such as the American Indian Council, have come out against the name and logo, but to me, that is group of representatives from various tribes not representing directly the Sauk nation and descendants from Chief Black Hawk who have the loudest voice on right and wrong. This not entirely different IMO then Swedish and Finnish people, all Scandinavian, but also two different groups of people that warred with one another historically. I think the as long as the Sauk people are in favor of both or either the name (less controversial) and logo, then no reason to change regardless of what the larger AIC says and unfortunately the white woke media want to happen. It's simply nobody's decision besides the Sauk people and the Hawks appropriately need to handle the name/logo in a genuine, honorable way. What I think or you, or Powers and Laz from The Athletic is irrelevant.
2) Regarding the report, I strongly suggest you read the entirety of the report if you have not already. I suggest everyone on this website or elsewhere that is forming strong emotional reactions to read the report in it's entirety. The media bits and bytes take a spin on it that after reading the report I said; well that's not the entire story. Look, there is no doubt the way in which McIdiot, Bowman, Coach Q and other front office personnel handled themselves is deplorable. They breached common HR policies and ethical responsibilities as is the case of any organization. However, the Blackhawks as a organization are bigger then those involved. Unlike what is being incorrectly portrayed by SOME of the media and by a lot of fans is everyone was in on this and everyone knew, and as such the court of public opinions wants to hold everyone... including the players like Toews and Kane....wrongfully accountable. That's simply not the case and misdirected emotional response. John Doe, was an AHL player not on the Blackhawks per se and was separate from the team, didn't practice with them, and was brought up as a "Black Ace" in case of injuries or suspension during the playoffs...common for playoff teams. I have a friend that was a Black Ace with another team and know the experience is not hanging out with the team and practicing with them most commonly; this is also mentioned in the report. As such, it is not the responsibility of Kane, Toews or any other player to handle this, they are employees of the organization and this was swiftly brought to the attention of senior management and executives which is the HR process of any large company (companies much larger then the Blackhawks). The players, again employees, jobs are to do to their job not handle HR issues no matter how bad they are. There are very specific legal reasons for this. Now, there is 1000% a failure on the part of especially Coach Q who Aldrich worked directly for, McIdiot as the President and Bowman as the in-between executive on not handling this appropriately by immediate suspension of Aldrich and termination at the finish of an investigation. They buried it to not draw attention during the WCF when the incident from May 8th/9th was brought to their attention, and to keep quiet moving on to win a cup with Aldrich there. Worse yet, they quietly let Aldrich go not to create a PR nightmare...all were 1000% wrong. They even brought in a police officer for consultation which says to me, they knew how serious this was although not criminal behavior on their part. As a result of their derelict of duty, a second incident with Aldrich happened at one of the Stanley Cup team parties with another Black Ace in which Aldrich grabbed the guys crotch at the party aka John Doe #2. That all said, outside of corporate responsibility and misconduct by the front office, in terms of the law we all live under on what kind of crime was committed between John Doe #1 and Aldrich on May 8th/9th, there is a lot of grey area. There were 3 people there that night; John Doe, Aldrich, and a woman. All 3 of their stories vary in terms of the details...none of them add-up leaving room for speculation. 1) Was John Doe more of a willing participant then he claims? 2) Were drugs and alcohol involved which opens a lot of questions? 3) Was it rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment all 3 having very different interpretations and punishments? 4) The John Doe player is 6'3", 200lbs, and was known as a fighter in hockey. Aldrich is 5'8" and 150lbs. As John Doe's friend, the only one he called and confided in a few days after the incident said, "you fight for a living, how did this happen?" That's a very good question, which then leads to drugs/alcohol and a 20 year old kid, #11 OA draft pick who's career isn't heading the way it should be, with a 27 year old video coach and pressures of wanting to make the NHL team. These are all interesting points of the report and encourage you to read it thoroughly if you haven't Again, the Hawks executive management screwed up big time but this doesn't involve the entire organization and that is clear. Something very wrong happened that evening and Aldrich is a POS predator, but what kind of crime was committed (rape, sexual harassment, assault, manipulation) and extent of it? In a weird way, on one end this seems very Clinton Monica Lewinsky'ish that a person in power took advantage of someone with no power and regretted their decision immediately after. On the other end of the spectrum full on rape was involved and Aldrich should be back in prison for many many years. Somewhere the truth likely is in the middle. I feel horrible for the AHL player/john Doe and hope he finds ways to heal from the incident and definitely admire his strength to address it knowing the public scrutiny involved.
3) I honestly don't think Wirtz was aware of it, certainly not at that point and time. McIdiot was well known to run the kingdom back then. Unless additive facts, and I stress the word "facts", come out, then I just can't jump to conclusions and assume Wirtz knew. I believe in the our most important aspect of being American that people are innocent until proven guilty whether there are legal implications or not. Unfortunately we live in a society today of sensationalism in the media and the public ready to light up forums/social media with guilty verdicts in the court of public opinon (aka cancel culture) and most times not even knowing the facts or in this case without even reading a thorough report. For that reason, no, the Wirtz's shouldn't be forced to sell. Something ethically very wrong happened in their company and those executives were let go for not enforcing HR standards and ethics which is 100% the right move, however, there is clear distinction if a organization was acting criminally (based on the facts they weren't) versus breaking ethical laws. This in my mind is no different that most companies who unfortunately face very similar issues with employees. You don't see companies being forced to sell as a result and the Blackhawks, despite us fans thinking differently, aren't nearly in the public eye or the public reach of many much larger companies for example Facebook or Google. Incidents followed by lawsuits like this happen regularly at much larger companies, people lose jobs, poor responses from management are unfortunately not unusual. It's a big problem with all companies world-wide and we as a society need to do better. We need to encourage people to not be embarrassed and come forward. We need to educate management teams on the severity of these issues and the long-lasting mental implications of a victim. We need to do better as a society but forcing the sale of company is not only legally impossible to impose, but also a knee jerk reaction based on the facts we know today in my opinion. The NHL has their standards that teams must adhere to, but the question isn't whether the standards were met....we know that answer....it's whether the people that broke those standards were dealt with and they were to the extent of the facts as we know them.
This is a bad situation and there is not a doubt in mind that all parties involved have their own interpretation of the facts 12 years later. Some are for sure not being truthful or some may be conversely exaggerating...Sopel for example "everyone knew"...who's everyone and knew what and to what extent did everyone know? We have to stick to facts and as the story continues to develop, scrutinize what is fact, fiction and opinion and do our best to remove emotions.