Let me start with this: I don't really care one way or another if Mike Milbury keeps his job at NBC. I'm not one for trying to get people fired and I generally believe people deserve an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and grow.
But let's be perfectly clear about this: Milbury did make a mistake. What he said was stupid and wrong. It was in fact "insensitive and insulting," as the NHL's statement condemning the comment put it. It was not "the truth" as my colleague Andy Hart wrote Monday morning, or as others on these airwaves have said. It was also not the first time Milbury's mouth has gotten him in trouble.
Let's start with the comment itself.
"Not even any women here to disrupt your concentration," Milbury said of life in the NHL's playoff bubble during an Islanders-Capitals broadcast on Thursday.
A lot of Milbury's defenders have said that if anything, his comment was actually an indictment of the players, of young men who might stay out at the bar or club so late chasing women to hook up with that it winds up affecting their play or making them less focused.
The problem is that's not what Milbury said. He didn't say, "Yeah, plus these guys can't even stay out late at bars and clubs." That still might've been a bit of a straw-man argument, as the vast majority of players tend to be pretty focused during a playoff run, but no one would've been up in arms about it.
Instead, Milbury's comments centered women. "Women" are the subject of his comment. They're the ones actively doing the disrupting. The players are the implied object, the ones having the disrupting done to them. Women are the ones at fault in Milbury's comment, not men.
Milbury also said "any women." That opens up the door to the possibility of him meaning wives, girlfriends, daughters, moms, and female reporters, broadcasters, team employees, league and arena staff, and on and on. "Any women" could mean, well… any women.
And if that's what Milbury meant, or if that's part of what he meant, then his comment is even more off-base. To a man, every player and coach in the bubble would tell you, and has been telling us, that they wish their families were there.
Bruins coach Bruce Cassidy has said numerous times that one of the best things about a normal playoff run is having all the players' wives, girlfriends and kids around the rink more, because it creates a true family atmosphere around the team and brings everyone together. They're not distractions; they're a unifying force.
The distraction is NOT having those family members around this year. Tuukka Rask was so distracted by not having his wife and three daughters around that he left the team and went back home due to a family emergency.
Cassidy has said you can tell that some other players have had some tough days. He's pointed out that it's often those women and children in your lives who pick you up when you're feeling down after a tough game.
In terms of reporters, broadcasters, team employees, league and arena staff, etc., we're talking about professionals on both sides of the equation here. The vast majority of interactions between male players and women in those roles are professional. Neither is distracted or disrupted just because they're around someone of the opposite sex.
Of course there are still issues and times those interactions turn unprofessional, but a comment like Milbury's, that again centers women and places the blame on them, is part of that problem. It lets the players off the hook and suggests it is the mere presence of women that leads to those unprofessional interactions.
As someone who works in this business and knows more than a few women in it, I can say that I have heard about and read about far more instances of players and other men around teams hitting on women in those roles and disrupting their jobs than the other way around.
And for the Milbury defenders saying that's obviously not what he meant, I would again point to his vague wording and lack of follow-up explanation and say that if there are women who did take his comments that way, it's certainly understandable.
And clearly, there are. The backlash was swift and wide-ranging. There are plenty of women whose voices you can seek out if you're interested in their explanations of why they took issue with Milbury's comment, but a couple decent places to start would be Katie Strang's column in The Athletic or Nicole Kraft's appearance on Ordway, Merloni and Fauria on Friday.
Those saying those women weren't actually offended or are faking their outrage aren't doing the Milbury defense squad any favors. If you're not willing to listen to different opinions than yours, there's no hope for any path forward here.
For instance, I recognize that there are plenty of women who had no issue with Milbury's comment. I heard our own Danielle Murr as well as esteemed hockey-centric caller Maria from Watertown come to his defense on The Greg Hill Show Monday morning.
That's fine! We don't all have to agree about whether it was offensive, or how offensive it was, or whether he deserves to lose or keep his job. But if you're just going to dismiss any and all criticism, that isn't productive either.
Milbury says he decided to step away for the remainder of the playoffs because he doesn't want his "presence to interfere with the athletes as they try to win the greatest trophy in sports." Maybe there was also a strong nudge out the door from NBC higher-ups.
We don't know if Milbury will return to NBC broadcasts next season. But if NBC does decide to move on, it won't just be this comment that factors into that equation.
As we mentioned, Milbury has a track record. He once called Daniel and Henrik Sedin "Thelma and Louise." He once said then-Penguins coach Dan Bylsma "should have taken off his skirt" and confronted an opposing coach. He called P.K. Subban, one of the few Black players in the NHL, a "clown" for dancing to music during warmups. He referred to Russian hockey as "Eurotrash," feeding into the same anti-European biases that have frequently gotten Don Cherry in trouble. He was also once charged with assaulting a 12-year-old at a pee-wee hockey game.
It wasn't even his first questionable comment this postseason. Earlier in the playoffs, he compared the empty arena in the bubble to a women's college hockey game, a cheap shot that ignored the fact that women's college games actually do draw crowds. He criticized Rask for leaving before having all the facts of that situation. And he suggested Maple Leafs defenseman Jake Muzzin may have been faking an injury to draw a penalty call on a play that actually ended with Muzzin needing to be stretchered off the ice.
There is a common theme here, and that is Milbury saying things either without thinking, or with a thought process that is stuck in a bygone era. There is a separate but related discussion about whether his analysis of the games themselves is also stuck in that bygone era. NBC certainly has other color commentators that are more than capable of stepping into Milbury's role.
But even leaving that last part out of it, if NBC just decides that this latest comment is the final straw after all these incidents that have piled up over many years, then Milbury won't have anyone to blame but himself.
I said at the top that I believe in second chances and opportunities to learn and grow. But Milbury has already gotten second, third, fourth and fifth chances. He's had years to learn and grow. If he hasn't done that, or won't do it now, then maybe it is time to move on.
