So, Trout, here I am again, posting for your sake. Say, you want posting access, Trout?
And where's Rick or House? Cliff? Don't you all have posting access? Regardless, never mind the Blue Jays' outfield/DH/1B dilemna with Thomas, Lind, Stewart, Wells, Rios, Johnson, et al. What about the Angels?
So, at least the five of us (myself, Trout, Rick, House, Cliff) as well as Mr. BBJ can discuss about this. And if R.T., CFB or THH would like to participate too, let's hear what you've got to say! Feel free to comment on the Jays too!
1. Angels' outfield situation:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11564-MLB-Los_Angeles_Angels_of_Anaheim-My_take_on_the_Angels_outfield_situation_To_DH_or_not_DH_-010308
2. Vancouver hockey talk:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11553-NHL-Vancouver_Canucks-Canucks-Jackets_Recap_Canucks_lose_lose_and_lose_A_beautiful_week_for_Canucks_haters-010308
Anyway, guys, enjoy the read, and look forward to more stuff soon.
The Hockey Farmer / Showing Their Scales
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
Update on personal project
I really could care less about anonymous idiots leaving cuss-ladened posts on my blogs/articles. Those that choose to use profanity really demonstrate how intelligent they are to begin with.
UPDATE: NON-FICTION SHORT STORY SET TO BE PUBLISHED CIRCA JUNE 2008; CONTRACT ALREADY SIGNED WITH BOOK PUBLISHER JANUARY '08. I don't usually brag about myself as writing is really just a matter of self-fulfillment/personal satisfaction, but since a lot of anonymous people wonder.... well, there's your answer. And no, I don't care one bit if any naysayers read it or what they have to say.
Who cares about anon posters?
And I guess I have one-upped Rick... getting published before even the great Rick!
UPDATE: NON-FICTION SHORT STORY SET TO BE PUBLISHED CIRCA JUNE 2008; CONTRACT ALREADY SIGNED WITH BOOK PUBLISHER JANUARY '08. I don't usually brag about myself as writing is really just a matter of self-fulfillment/personal satisfaction, but since a lot of anonymous people wonder.... well, there's your answer. And no, I don't care one bit if any naysayers read it or what they have to say.
Who cares about anon posters?
And I guess I have one-upped Rick... getting published before even the great Rick!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
New post just for Trout...
This post is dedicated to Trout, Rick, and all the mates on zonk. Hopefully this will generate some discussion on here instead of just the rants me and House had on the GST thing.
And things have gotten quiet since RT has vanished... :-(
And Trout, hopefully this will not be inconvenience for you!!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11359-NHL-New_Jersey_Devils-Ottawa_Senators-Memorable_coaching_changes_in_the_NHL-280208
The Ottawa Senators fired head coach John Paddock on Wednesday (Feb. 27), with GM Bryan Murray taking over.
The Sens, who had been leading the Eastern Conference from Day One until just recently, have been playing poorly of late. Back-to-back shutout losses (5-0 and 4-0 to the Maple Leafs and Bruins, respectively) paved the way for Paddock's firing.
Whispers have been that the team had quit on Paddock, as the team that started out the season 15-2-0 has struggled in recent weeks, allowing the New Jersey Devils, Pittsburgh Penguins, and Montreal Canadiens to catch up in the standings.
Some will blame GM Murray instead of the team's woes, for the failure to move controversial goaltender Ray Emery and being unable to acquire Nikolai Khabibulan and Marian Hossa, two players that the Senators were rumored to be after prior to the trade deadline.
Will the coaching change have any significant impact on the Senators?
We will find out once the playoffs starts.
For now though, let's take a trip back to memory lane and look at some other memorable mid-season coaching changes by playoff-bound teams.
The New Jersey Devils were leading the Eastern Conference for much of the 1999-2000 season, and Martin Brodeur looked to break Bernie Parent's single-season wins record by a goaltender. However, thanks to a mini-slump by the team (5-10-2 in 17 games) near the end, GM Lou Lamoriello fired coach Robbie Ftorek with only eight games left.
Larry Robinson, Ftorek's replacement, guided the Devils to a 4-4 record in the remaining regular season games and the team finished two points behind Philadelphia for the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference.
The team, however, woke up in the Eastern Conference Finals.
With the Devils down three games to one to the Flyers, Robinson called out his team to the media. The players seemingly listened, and the Devils rallied for three straight wins to get to the Stanley Cup Final, where they beat the Dallas Stars to capture their second championship in six seasons.
In a similar move last season, Lamoriello was at it again, firing coach Claude Julien on April 2, 2007 despite the Devils' 47-24-8 record.
Meanwhile, a similiar fate happened to Ftorek again in Boston three seasons after his New Jersey experience. When he was fired in 2000, Ftorek had guided the Devils to 41 wins in their first 74 games. While with the Bruins in 2002-03, his record was 33-28-8-4 but he again got the boot with only nine games left as Boston GM Mike O'Connell took over.
The 2006-07 Devils and 2002-03 Bruins didn't accomplish much in the playoffs following the coaching changes.
But what could top the mess that took place in New York in 1988-89? Rangers bench boss Michel Bergeron was fired by GM Phil Esposito with two games remaining in the season, with the Blueshirts having already clinched a playoff berth ages ago--but had allowed Washington and Pittsburgh to overtake them in the standings.
With New York on a 3-10-0 slide and losers of three straight, Bergeron was relieved on April Fool's, with Esposito taking over with just two days (and two games) left before the season ended.
The Rangers lost both games, and then fell in four straight to the Penguins once the playoffs rolled around.
So, what will happen to the 2007-08 Senators?
Will Murray's impact on Ottawa be similar to that of Robinson's in New Jersey eight seasons ago, or will it be irrelevant a la Esposito in New York a couple decades ago?
Discuss.
And things have gotten quiet since RT has vanished... :-(
And Trout, hopefully this will not be inconvenience for you!!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11359-NHL-New_Jersey_Devils-Ottawa_Senators-Memorable_coaching_changes_in_the_NHL-280208
The Ottawa Senators fired head coach John Paddock on Wednesday (Feb. 27), with GM Bryan Murray taking over.
The Sens, who had been leading the Eastern Conference from Day One until just recently, have been playing poorly of late. Back-to-back shutout losses (5-0 and 4-0 to the Maple Leafs and Bruins, respectively) paved the way for Paddock's firing.
Whispers have been that the team had quit on Paddock, as the team that started out the season 15-2-0 has struggled in recent weeks, allowing the New Jersey Devils, Pittsburgh Penguins, and Montreal Canadiens to catch up in the standings.
Some will blame GM Murray instead of the team's woes, for the failure to move controversial goaltender Ray Emery and being unable to acquire Nikolai Khabibulan and Marian Hossa, two players that the Senators were rumored to be after prior to the trade deadline.
Will the coaching change have any significant impact on the Senators?
We will find out once the playoffs starts.
For now though, let's take a trip back to memory lane and look at some other memorable mid-season coaching changes by playoff-bound teams.
The New Jersey Devils were leading the Eastern Conference for much of the 1999-2000 season, and Martin Brodeur looked to break Bernie Parent's single-season wins record by a goaltender. However, thanks to a mini-slump by the team (5-10-2 in 17 games) near the end, GM Lou Lamoriello fired coach Robbie Ftorek with only eight games left.
Larry Robinson, Ftorek's replacement, guided the Devils to a 4-4 record in the remaining regular season games and the team finished two points behind Philadelphia for the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference.
The team, however, woke up in the Eastern Conference Finals.
With the Devils down three games to one to the Flyers, Robinson called out his team to the media. The players seemingly listened, and the Devils rallied for three straight wins to get to the Stanley Cup Final, where they beat the Dallas Stars to capture their second championship in six seasons.
In a similar move last season, Lamoriello was at it again, firing coach Claude Julien on April 2, 2007 despite the Devils' 47-24-8 record.
Meanwhile, a similiar fate happened to Ftorek again in Boston three seasons after his New Jersey experience. When he was fired in 2000, Ftorek had guided the Devils to 41 wins in their first 74 games. While with the Bruins in 2002-03, his record was 33-28-8-4 but he again got the boot with only nine games left as Boston GM Mike O'Connell took over.
The 2006-07 Devils and 2002-03 Bruins didn't accomplish much in the playoffs following the coaching changes.
But what could top the mess that took place in New York in 1988-89? Rangers bench boss Michel Bergeron was fired by GM Phil Esposito with two games remaining in the season, with the Blueshirts having already clinched a playoff berth ages ago--but had allowed Washington and Pittsburgh to overtake them in the standings.
With New York on a 3-10-0 slide and losers of three straight, Bergeron was relieved on April Fool's, with Esposito taking over with just two days (and two games) left before the season ended.
The Rangers lost both games, and then fell in four straight to the Penguins once the playoffs rolled around.
So, what will happen to the 2007-08 Senators?
Will Murray's impact on Ottawa be similar to that of Robinson's in New Jersey eight seasons ago, or will it be irrelevant a la Esposito in New York a couple decades ago?
Discuss.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Proud to be Canadian?
Over the past 5 years, CBC Marketplace has done a bang-up job in uncovering hidden secrets about companies and their awful practices, which leads one to wonder: Why on earth are they allowed to get away with it all?
Since 2003, there have been stories on the program about harmful cleaning products that aren't regulated, banks that scam customers in mortgage insurance, medical ghost-writing where drug companies cover up negative side-effects of their products, a well-known electronic store that aggressively sells extended warranties with false promises, and so on.
Companies pretty much scam consumers and they get away with it.
Is that what consumers deserve?
In the past couple of weeks, we've heard about how companies have quietly raised prices in response to the GST cut. An opera house, in particular, refused to honour the printed prices on its brochure, and in fact was going to make a lot more profit out of it.
Kudos to Tim Horton's and Starbucks, among others, whose prices have remained static.
Also, two weeks ago, the program ran the story about a Canadian who was denied mortgage insurance when he became sick, and another one whose family was also denied when he died.
Basically, what allegedly happens is that bank employees are told to aggressively sell mortgage insurance despite the fact that they are 1) unlicensed, 2) not concerned about informing the customer about the specific details.
So this basically means you'll have to hire a lawyer when signing on the dotted line.
Again, this begs the question: What kind of world do we live in?
Five years ago, a story came out on CBC Marketplace claiming that a certain electronic chain--which shall remain unnamed--aggressively promotes extended warranties. Employees were told to sell them (and maintain a target) or else, according to a former employee.
And one teenager who paid for the warranty was told if the gadget broke, all he had to do was bring it back for a replacement.
Guess what he got.
And the intriguing thing was that if you went to different locations--which the reporter did (to three stores, no less), with a hidden camera--you will find that warranties on the same product DIFFER in price! Depends on the person selling it, I guess.
And the sales clerks recorded on camera all claim that even if you dropped the product and it broke, you would be entitled to a replacement.
Lies.
Of course, that chain denied it all, but who would you believe? The former employee, or the store?
And just last week, I went to that store, and of course, one of the sales clerks was aggressive in selling that useless piece of paper.
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
What a disgrace, when one of the top five banks in Canada is implicated... along with those other big corporations trying to scam consumers.
Since 2003, there have been stories on the program about harmful cleaning products that aren't regulated, banks that scam customers in mortgage insurance, medical ghost-writing where drug companies cover up negative side-effects of their products, a well-known electronic store that aggressively sells extended warranties with false promises, and so on.
Companies pretty much scam consumers and they get away with it.
Is that what consumers deserve?
In the past couple of weeks, we've heard about how companies have quietly raised prices in response to the GST cut. An opera house, in particular, refused to honour the printed prices on its brochure, and in fact was going to make a lot more profit out of it.
Kudos to Tim Horton's and Starbucks, among others, whose prices have remained static.
Also, two weeks ago, the program ran the story about a Canadian who was denied mortgage insurance when he became sick, and another one whose family was also denied when he died.
Basically, what allegedly happens is that bank employees are told to aggressively sell mortgage insurance despite the fact that they are 1) unlicensed, 2) not concerned about informing the customer about the specific details.
So this basically means you'll have to hire a lawyer when signing on the dotted line.
Again, this begs the question: What kind of world do we live in?
Five years ago, a story came out on CBC Marketplace claiming that a certain electronic chain--which shall remain unnamed--aggressively promotes extended warranties. Employees were told to sell them (and maintain a target) or else, according to a former employee.
And one teenager who paid for the warranty was told if the gadget broke, all he had to do was bring it back for a replacement.
Guess what he got.
And the intriguing thing was that if you went to different locations--which the reporter did (to three stores, no less), with a hidden camera--you will find that warranties on the same product DIFFER in price! Depends on the person selling it, I guess.
And the sales clerks recorded on camera all claim that even if you dropped the product and it broke, you would be entitled to a replacement.
Lies.
Of course, that chain denied it all, but who would you believe? The former employee, or the store?
And just last week, I went to that store, and of course, one of the sales clerks was aggressive in selling that useless piece of paper.
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
What a disgrace, when one of the top five banks in Canada is implicated... along with those other big corporations trying to scam consumers.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Open letter to Canucks fans
I posted on Bleacher Report today in response to the Canucks' fans taking shots at me. There, I put my name out there and dished out the hits. I am not scared or intimidated that I would hide behind a fake name or sign in as "anonymous."
Monday, February 25, 2008
Should a long-time superstar be able to veto a trade and not get ripped by the media?
The issue here has been magnified in 2007-08 when Toronto's Mats Sundin repeatedly refused to waive his no-trade clause (an announcement which came out on Sunday, two days prior to the trade deadline), and interim general manager Cliff Fletcher has been forced to hang on to the Maple Leafs' captain instead of dealing him for prospects.
The Leafs have been in the midst of a non-playff campaign, and have been floundering around 14th place in the 15-team Eastern Conference for much of February--the weeks leading up to the Feb. 26th trade deadline.
The Toronto media, for two months, had wanted Sundin traded so that the Maple Leafs could rebuild for the upcoming seasons.
Sundin, however, stating on Sunday that he didn't believe in the "rental player" concept, wanted to remain a Leaf and did not waive the no-trade clause.
Sundin, who had never played on a Stanley Cup winner, reportedly had drawn interest from contenders like Detroit (who had the best record in the NHL), Anaheim (defending champion), Ottawa (who had been the top seed in the East until trade deadline weekend), Montreal, and San Jose.
So, the debate here is, should a long-time star be able to pull this off, and hamper the team's rebuilding plans?
Sundin is 37, and the Leafs are facing the prospects of missing the playoffs for the third straight year, a first in franchise history. What good would hanging onto Sundin do for the Leafs?
One thing to consider is that Sundin has never led the Leafs to a Stanley Cup Final in his 13 seasons with the club.
But what if a guy has led his team to a championship or two? Should he be allowed to pull off the same stunt?
My take on this is that no one player is bigger than the team.
If the player really wants what's good for the team and respects the organization, shouldn't he be willing to accept a trade so that 1) he could go to a contender and have a shot at a championship, 2) the club could rebuild with young players?
The other side to consider is that Sundin has a no-trade clause, and any player, for that matter, who has veto power, could choose to exercise it. No one forced management to dole out that kind of agreement. So again, it's not as though the player is holding the team hostage. He is simply exercising his right, in this case, to remain with the club.
There is a difference between vetoing a trade because you want to be traded to a better team, and vetoing it because you truly want to remain with the club and finish the season--and perhaps your career--there.
In Sundin's case, it seemed it was the latter.
Does this make it right?
Well, my contention is that if a player truly wants what's best for the club, then accept the trade. It might help the team, and who knows, if he is a free-agent to-be, he may be able to negotiate with the original club and come back for the following season.
After all, the reason the team is trying to deal the player must be due to the fact that it is struggling and likely not going to make the playoffs. In theory, the team might get a high draft (Toronto fans want Steven Stamkos) pick and also reap benefits by dealing away the star player and get some prospects at the same time.
Isn't that a win-win situation?
Those who say that Sundin--or any player in that position--has "earned the right" to dictate what he wants after spending that many years
in the organization, should again be reminded: No one player is bigger than the team.
Players do not manage; they play.
I will say this: Sundin showed that during his tenure in the Leafs organization, he was a player with integrity and class. Sundin should be respected for his desire to finish the season with his team as opposed to agreeing to be a rental player and chase championships for his own glory--unlike, say, Ray Bourque, who left Boston to win that Stanley Cup.
Sundin deserved respect from all sports fans--that much I agree.
However, all that aside, he should have agreed to be traded for the good of the team--that's my take on this whole issue.
The Leafs have been in the midst of a non-playff campaign, and have been floundering around 14th place in the 15-team Eastern Conference for much of February--the weeks leading up to the Feb. 26th trade deadline.
The Toronto media, for two months, had wanted Sundin traded so that the Maple Leafs could rebuild for the upcoming seasons.
Sundin, however, stating on Sunday that he didn't believe in the "rental player" concept, wanted to remain a Leaf and did not waive the no-trade clause.
Sundin, who had never played on a Stanley Cup winner, reportedly had drawn interest from contenders like Detroit (who had the best record in the NHL), Anaheim (defending champion), Ottawa (who had been the top seed in the East until trade deadline weekend), Montreal, and San Jose.
So, the debate here is, should a long-time star be able to pull this off, and hamper the team's rebuilding plans?
Sundin is 37, and the Leafs are facing the prospects of missing the playoffs for the third straight year, a first in franchise history. What good would hanging onto Sundin do for the Leafs?
One thing to consider is that Sundin has never led the Leafs to a Stanley Cup Final in his 13 seasons with the club.
But what if a guy has led his team to a championship or two? Should he be allowed to pull off the same stunt?
My take on this is that no one player is bigger than the team.
If the player really wants what's good for the team and respects the organization, shouldn't he be willing to accept a trade so that 1) he could go to a contender and have a shot at a championship, 2) the club could rebuild with young players?
The other side to consider is that Sundin has a no-trade clause, and any player, for that matter, who has veto power, could choose to exercise it. No one forced management to dole out that kind of agreement. So again, it's not as though the player is holding the team hostage. He is simply exercising his right, in this case, to remain with the club.
There is a difference between vetoing a trade because you want to be traded to a better team, and vetoing it because you truly want to remain with the club and finish the season--and perhaps your career--there.
In Sundin's case, it seemed it was the latter.
Does this make it right?
Well, my contention is that if a player truly wants what's best for the club, then accept the trade. It might help the team, and who knows, if he is a free-agent to-be, he may be able to negotiate with the original club and come back for the following season.
After all, the reason the team is trying to deal the player must be due to the fact that it is struggling and likely not going to make the playoffs. In theory, the team might get a high draft (Toronto fans want Steven Stamkos) pick and also reap benefits by dealing away the star player and get some prospects at the same time.
Isn't that a win-win situation?
Those who say that Sundin--or any player in that position--has "earned the right" to dictate what he wants after spending that many years
in the organization, should again be reminded: No one player is bigger than the team.
Players do not manage; they play.
I will say this: Sundin showed that during his tenure in the Leafs organization, he was a player with integrity and class. Sundin should be respected for his desire to finish the season with his team as opposed to agreeing to be a rental player and chase championships for his own glory--unlike, say, Ray Bourque, who left Boston to win that Stanley Cup.
Sundin deserved respect from all sports fans--that much I agree.
However, all that aside, he should have agreed to be traded for the good of the team--that's my take on this whole issue.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
This week's posts
Well Trout, it's 27 sports blogs in 27 days now!
This week, I've decided to just post on Bleacher Report instead of here. Check them out there!
- Clemens' legacy (Feb 24, 08)
- Alleged photo evidence on Clemens (Feb 23, 08)
- Flyers and Wings look to rebound tonight (Feb 23, 08)
- Sens vs Pens - could Pittsburgh take over first place? (Feb 23, 08)
- Leafs win and win again (Boston & Columbus) (Feb 20, 08)
- Vancouver-Edmonton preview (Feb 16, 08)
If you do the math, it's 27 sports blogs in 27 days!
This week, I've decided to just post on Bleacher Report instead of here. Check them out there!
- Clemens' legacy (Feb 24, 08)
- Alleged photo evidence on Clemens (Feb 23, 08)
- Flyers and Wings look to rebound tonight (Feb 23, 08)
- Sens vs Pens - could Pittsburgh take over first place? (Feb 23, 08)
- Leafs win and win again (Boston & Columbus) (Feb 20, 08)
- Vancouver-Edmonton preview (Feb 16, 08)
If you do the math, it's 27 sports blogs in 27 days!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
