The tributes to him have been numerous of late, for good reason: he was a tremendous hockey player, and also an honorable man. He could have continued for another year, one in which he was a shoe-in for captaincy at the Winter Olympics, played near his home town of Burnaby, BC, but, gentleman that he was, he decided that wasn't a good enough reason to stay.
In the late '80s, I was a fan of the Québec Nordiques. Barely a handful of us, in a 600-student school, didn't root for the hometown Montréal Canadiens - I guess we were rebels.
I remember my parents being nice enough to arrange small weekend trips to Québec City just so I could see my favourite team play. 1988-89 may have been the season where we went the most often, perhaps 5 times, for maybe a total of 6 games. The memories are vague, but I recall #88 (that's the number he first wore) being most impressive, even more so than Peter Stastny, another player I really liked.
Sakic had moves and a charisma in full hockey gear that he somehow gets to hide when in plain clothes. He's like Superman that way - he has to wear civilian clothing to appear normal when, in fact, he's leagues ahead of even other professionals. And he oozes leadership - a fact confirmed by his being the captaincy during only his third pro season.
As a teen, I'd always wear my #88 Sakic jersey whenever I'd play outside - whether the rink or the alleyways, or the street. People around the neighbourhood would actually call me Sakic, even when I wasn't wearing the shirt. My good friend Jean-Martin, on the other hand, was Yzerman - the only other player not named Gretzky that displayed a kind of masculine grace to go along with even personalities and an amazing set of skills - and another captain wearing #19 who stayed with the same franchise for his entire career.
Burnaby Joe had the best wrist shot in the game, one of the best backhand shots too - and he could pass like few others in his time (there was Gretzky, Oates, and then Sakic, with maybe Thornton and Koivu to finish the top 5 of the past 10-15 years). His adversaries did everything they could to get him off his game - some attempting to injure him, some succeeding, but he never retaliated. He'd score the game winner instead, as he was wont to do - he holds the all-time playoffs record for most game winners.
It's just a shame he had to wait until the team moved to Denver to win the Cup - and the Playoff MVP Award (Conn Smythe Trophy); I would have loved to go see him hoist that salad bowl at the Colisée.
It's weird; I'm 30 and have lived in an era where I've witnessed records that were considered timeless fall - the (juiced) home run record in baseball, most of Roy's and Gretzky's (and Sakic's) NHL records, the Michael Phelps phenomenon - and I've seen them all retire. Them and Mario Lemieux, Joe Montana, John Elway, Guy Lafleur, Mark Messier. I saw it happen and I saw it come to an end.
It makes one feel small.
Sad to see you go, Joe.
Showing posts with label Joe Sakic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Sakic. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Wash The Dirty: The Treacherous Journey From Employment To Unemployment, Volume 1 - Etiquettes To Firing Someone
How would you fire somebody? And when? There has to be some sort of etiquette if the person has given you all they had to give, no?
If it's a lazy-ass troublemaker, no question, you boot them out. Take them aside - or not; then tell them straight-up: you suck, it won't do, you've had enough chances, get the fuck out, thanks for your time.
But a good worker? Someone's who's done everything you've asked of them at all times, regardless of the variety of tasks, of the degrading nature of said tasks? Someone's who's been burning themselves out to the point of obvious health issues doing the work of three people at once in five grueling 9-hour shifts per week (and who would be underpaid in the market for the work of just one of those three people)?
Today I witnessed a firing that not only made no sense in and of itself, but that seemed a little harsh (to say the least), considering. I saw the most respected member of an office middle-management team, who had been under employment at said company for just about three years - that the company had in fact stolen from a competitor - get the boot 5 minutes before the end of their shift, in the middle of the week, with a shitload of work due the next day at various times between 9AM and 8PM.
''We're no longer going in the same direction'' is the only reason given to the rest of the management team, also grossly underpaid and overworked, some of whom cried. Apparently, they had subtly offered the worker a(nother) new position in previous weeks, a proposition that was declined. But when you've had 8 job titles in the past year or so and had responsibility over 3 different departments in that span, I can understand wanting to stick to one thing, especially if the offer isn't all that clear to begin with and sounds more like a vague possibility than an actual threat.
It seems like company policy to tell people 5 minutes before the end of their shift with a few working days left in the week. To not give them time to clean out their emails and voicemails, to make sure they don't forget their lucky pen, to say goodbye. It's happened quite a few times in, say, the last couple of years, but this one is a lot harder to take. And I say this while I've had actual friends that I had brought to the company myself get the same treatment.
I've played hockey long enough to see people get traded, cut from teams, replaced. Heck, I've been traded (and fired too!) myself. Sometimes it's because you no longer ''fit in the plans''. Other times your value may be so high that you're now worth the same as someone who fills other needs better than you fill your hole. Sometimes you just don't get along, or maybe they just want to ''change the culture of the dressing room''.
These things happen, they're rarely joyful, but there are ways to do them right. But this... This ranks just about as low on my Chart Of Shitty Ways To Leave A Job as when I was falsely accused of stealing bootleg CDs from a record store I used to work at just because the boss' daughter didn't like working with me - but I'll save that one for a later text.
In the meantime, I've lost the person I had seen the most of in recent years, even if only because we both spent a third of our time in the middle of the same four beige-and-burgundy walls, walking on the same dusty brown carpet, breathing the same moldy air conditionning, drinking the same half-filtered water, bossing around the same nine people, fixing the same computers over and over again, sharing a desk and germs, working for the same greedy bastards, each working our different specialized skills to solve different ends of the same problem.
It's always middle-management that gets the cut. The executives lose clients, lose money, ask for impossible things and get raises. Employees can find their niche between working just hard enough and wasting time on the internet. But middle-management types get fired and the remaining staff members get to see their workload increase. Or, in hockey terms, I guess: it's easier to fire the coach than 23 players, and the GM will go through a few coaches before the President loses patience, and the owner will let the President go through a few GMs before losing patience.
But this coach was an anchor to most, a buoy to the rest of us. The Scottie Pippen to my Michael Jordan. No, wait, the talent has to be reversed: the Peter Forsberg to my Joe Sakic. I have durability (7 years and counting in this place), I'm looking at a Hall of Fame career of sorts, but the work could only be done right with a perhaps more talented but injury-prone superstar who would do all the things I wouldn't, while I'd do what they weren't able to.
And I work better, in most spheres of life, when I have someone who completes me rather than someone I completely share interests with. I'm only a good team player with a reduced team, and I like to exchange ideas to get somewhere. I have no idea if that's what I'll be handed tomorrow. Anyone hiring?
If it's a lazy-ass troublemaker, no question, you boot them out. Take them aside - or not; then tell them straight-up: you suck, it won't do, you've had enough chances, get the fuck out, thanks for your time.
But a good worker? Someone's who's done everything you've asked of them at all times, regardless of the variety of tasks, of the degrading nature of said tasks? Someone's who's been burning themselves out to the point of obvious health issues doing the work of three people at once in five grueling 9-hour shifts per week (and who would be underpaid in the market for the work of just one of those three people)?
Today I witnessed a firing that not only made no sense in and of itself, but that seemed a little harsh (to say the least), considering. I saw the most respected member of an office middle-management team, who had been under employment at said company for just about three years - that the company had in fact stolen from a competitor - get the boot 5 minutes before the end of their shift, in the middle of the week, with a shitload of work due the next day at various times between 9AM and 8PM.
''We're no longer going in the same direction'' is the only reason given to the rest of the management team, also grossly underpaid and overworked, some of whom cried. Apparently, they had subtly offered the worker a(nother) new position in previous weeks, a proposition that was declined. But when you've had 8 job titles in the past year or so and had responsibility over 3 different departments in that span, I can understand wanting to stick to one thing, especially if the offer isn't all that clear to begin with and sounds more like a vague possibility than an actual threat.
It seems like company policy to tell people 5 minutes before the end of their shift with a few working days left in the week. To not give them time to clean out their emails and voicemails, to make sure they don't forget their lucky pen, to say goodbye. It's happened quite a few times in, say, the last couple of years, but this one is a lot harder to take. And I say this while I've had actual friends that I had brought to the company myself get the same treatment.
I've played hockey long enough to see people get traded, cut from teams, replaced. Heck, I've been traded (and fired too!) myself. Sometimes it's because you no longer ''fit in the plans''. Other times your value may be so high that you're now worth the same as someone who fills other needs better than you fill your hole. Sometimes you just don't get along, or maybe they just want to ''change the culture of the dressing room''.
These things happen, they're rarely joyful, but there are ways to do them right. But this... This ranks just about as low on my Chart Of Shitty Ways To Leave A Job as when I was falsely accused of stealing bootleg CDs from a record store I used to work at just because the boss' daughter didn't like working with me - but I'll save that one for a later text.
In the meantime, I've lost the person I had seen the most of in recent years, even if only because we both spent a third of our time in the middle of the same four beige-and-burgundy walls, walking on the same dusty brown carpet, breathing the same moldy air conditionning, drinking the same half-filtered water, bossing around the same nine people, fixing the same computers over and over again, sharing a desk and germs, working for the same greedy bastards, each working our different specialized skills to solve different ends of the same problem.
It's always middle-management that gets the cut. The executives lose clients, lose money, ask for impossible things and get raises. Employees can find their niche between working just hard enough and wasting time on the internet. But middle-management types get fired and the remaining staff members get to see their workload increase. Or, in hockey terms, I guess: it's easier to fire the coach than 23 players, and the GM will go through a few coaches before the President loses patience, and the owner will let the President go through a few GMs before losing patience.
But this coach was an anchor to most, a buoy to the rest of us. The Scottie Pippen to my Michael Jordan. No, wait, the talent has to be reversed: the Peter Forsberg to my Joe Sakic. I have durability (7 years and counting in this place), I'm looking at a Hall of Fame career of sorts, but the work could only be done right with a perhaps more talented but injury-prone superstar who would do all the things I wouldn't, while I'd do what they weren't able to.
And I work better, in most spheres of life, when I have someone who completes me rather than someone I completely share interests with. I'm only a good team player with a reduced team, and I like to exchange ideas to get somewhere. I have no idea if that's what I'll be handed tomorrow. Anyone hiring?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)