St. Patrick's Day today??

I learned something today... March 2nd is "St. Patrick's Day", especially if you're the Canucks.... hahaha...

More fun times for Canucks haters:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11635-NHL-Chicago_Blackhawks-Vancouver_Canucks-Blackhawks-Canucks_St_Patrick_s_Day_in_Chicago-020308

Trout, BBJ, R.T., come out to play!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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."

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.

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!

Luongo Controversy

This morning, a couple of talk show hosts from a Vancouver sports radio station (Team 1040) were commenting on the Roberto Luongo pad issue.

For those of you who haven't heard, the Dallas Stars allegedly complained to the NHL before the start of last year's playoffs that the Canucks goalie's knee flaps--which stuck out of his pads--gave him an unfair advantage. If you were to believe the charges, those flaps were supposedly helping Luongo make more saves.

Then in December, Stars goalies Marty Turco and Mike Smith jokingly put on home-made mock flaps during a morning skate to perhaps seemingly further insinuate that Luongo's pads had been illegal.

In reality, the knee flaps worn by Luongo supposedly are for protective purposes and nothing more, and some other goalies in the league use them too, most notably Stanley Cup champion J.S. Giguerre of the Ducks.

A couple months ago when the complaints by the Stars surfaced, the NHL had allowed Luongo to continue using the pads after checking the equipment. And that was also okayed during the Stars-Canucks first-round playoff series last spring too.

The reason that this is now an issue is that the league has apparently reversed its ruling, and has asked Luongo to remove the flaps.

And get this: apparently other goalies in the league will still be allowed to wear theirs.

Double standards? In professional sports? Welcome to the NHL.

Not that I sympathize with Luongo, of course, as I do not root for the Canucks.

But apparently an unofficial statement issued by Kay Whitmore--a former Canuck goalie who is now part of the league's "goalie police" department dealing with equipment issues--to The Province, a newspaper in Vancouver, was that the controversial ruling was handed down was due to the way Luongo was wearing his pads.

My take on this is that goalies shouldn't be allowed to wear big pads to begin with, so the league definitely needs to start cracking down on goalie equipment issues.

But getting back to the comments made by the morning show hosts in Vancouver, this is supposedly a good thing.

According to them, this ruling will motivate Luongo to take his game to the next level. Play with a chip on his shoulder, and prove to the rest of the league that he can be one of the world's best goalies in spite of this gamesmanship displayed by the Stars.

Hello? Make Luongo mad and he'll shut the door on the rest of the league?

What do these media guys know anyway?

Has Luongo proven to be in the same class as a guy like Patrick Roy, who you can certainly suggest played well when challenged in that manner?

Roy was a multiple Stanley Cup winner.

What has Luongo won?

One playoff round in his NHL career, that's what.

For these talk show hosts to even remotely suggest that Luongo may now step up and take charge because of this controversy is laughable.

Now, the hosts didn't mention Roy's name, but if you try and read between the lines, it's like saying that Luongo is suddenly going to have this unbeatable aura because of this controversy and have a "us-against-the-world" mentality.

Very few athletes have been able to take it to that kind of level. Certainly none in Vancouver's non-storied history as far as I know. Certainly not in Luongo's repetoire either.

But perhaps now the media guys are going to say that Vancouver should plan a parade for this team come June too. Better start printing those Stanley Cup tickets and plan a route for the championship celebrations!

And oh, by the way, guess what. Peter Forsberg isn't going to Vancouver either.

I guess the Vancouver media will suggest that the Canucks will land Mats Sundin or some other big name before the trading deadline too!

Is there anyone else out there who has a take on this goalie equipment/Luongo controversy? Discuss.

Radical Baseball Wild Card Format

Purists and critics have complained that far too many wild card teams in baseball have been winning or making it to the World Series.

These teams weren't even good enough to win their own division, for crying out loud!

Yet, once these second-place outfits get on a roll and get into the post-season, they start knocking other teams off.

In 2007, it was the Colorado Rockies in the National League. The 2006 Tigers and 2005 Astros also made it to the Fall Classic.

The 2004 Red Sox used the wild card route to make the post-season before stunning the world with their record-setting triumph over the Yankees in the ALCS and an anti-climatic sweep over St. Louis in the Fall Classic.

1997 and 2003 Marlins. 2002 Angels and Giants. And on and on.

Based on the current format, wild card teams do not have home-field advantage in the Division Series or League Championship Series, regardless of their won-loss records. (It's possible for a wild card team to have a better record than a division winner, but the latter will have the extra home game.)

Well, if wild card teams in baseball are havin so much success--or luck--why not give them more of a disadvantage, or penalty, if you will, for not winning their divisions?

At the present time, the Division Series is a best-of-five, with the series going 2-2-1 and the wild card team having the middle two games.

A wild card team could potentially split the first two, go home for the middle two games and sweep them, and move on to the League Championship Series.

I propose the following to eliminate such an "advantage" for these non-division champs:

Let the wild card host the first game.

Yes, you heard me right. The first game should be hosted by the "inferior" team.

Then here's the kicker.

The division winner will then host the remaining four games of the series.

That's right, a 1-4 format, with the wild card team getting just one home game, and it can't come in any of the "key" or pivotal middle games.

If a wild card team can survive that, then kudos to that team.

And let's say that team makes it past the Division Series and moves on to the League Championship Series, again, the current 2-3-2 format could be favorable.

Again, split the first two, and get the next three at home. What disadvantage is that?

My solution:

3-2-2, with the division champ hosting five of a possible seven contests.

Again, under this proposed format, if the wild card team somehow survives the first three games going 2-1, this forces them to have to win their lone two home games, otherwise they have to return to enemy territory to try and advance to the World Series.

This probably will never happen, but if baseball wants to eliminate the wild card "advantage", they must go an unconventional route in order to accomplish this.

Does anyone else out there have any bright ideas for the wild card? Discuss.

Should a team get a point for losing?

Should a team get a point for losing?

Of course, everyone who follows hockey knows this.

The NHL awards teams that lose in overtime and in the tie-breaking shootout a single point, while the winning team gets two points.

Huh?

How can there be a total of three points awarded (to both teams) when a regulation game awards only two?

Strange.

Yes, I understand the league's reasoning behind it.

Previously, before the NHL started adopting the "extra point" rule (and before shootouts were used), teams could basically be tied after regulation, and then play it conservatively in the OT period and pray for that single point. Be aggressive and go for it, and have it backfire if the other team scores, and you lose everything. No points for a 60+ minute effort.

Thus, coaches preached playing it safe, and skate away after that five-minute OT session with a single point.

Yes, I get that.

So, the single point that is now awarded for OT and shootout losses is supposedly going to make teams go for it and not worry about losing if they get caught in odd-man breaks.

Teams could go for it and try to score, knowing that they have already secured that "loser" point regardless of what happens next. If they actually win, they get two points.

Yes, I know that too.

And, with a lot of games being close and all these extra bonus points awarded for losses, it has created a more competitive game--on the ice and in the standings.

For example, just randomly taking a look at the standings, say on February 14, 2008, you will see the following scenarios:

Toronto, despite being last in the Eastern Conference with 55 points (and second last overall in the entire league), was just 8 points behind eighth-place Boston (63) for the final playoff spot in the conference.

The Maple Leafs had been inconsistent all year long during the 2007-08 season, and had blown third-period and last-minute leads in several games. And they had those bonus points to show for their failures, and those points had piled up and made it seem like they still had a shot.

That's what the NHL is trying to do, trying to create this competitive balance. Teams that still think they are in the playoff race will probably not want to tank the season and start a fire sale. Good for the league, good for fan interest, et cetera, et cetera.

However, the problem here is that this system is giving fans false hope.

Tampa Bay, with 56 points on the same day, was No. 14 in the conference, but was only 6 points away from being tied for the division lead in the mediocre Southeast Division. If the Lightning went on a hot streak, they might well catch up to the division leaders and could see themselves in third place in the entire conference (since division winners were ranked 1-2-3 in the conference standings).

And just to look at this humorously for a second, a team could basically go 0-0-82 (ie. not win any games, losing all 82 games in overtime or in the shootout) and get 82 points. That's a .500 record, for not winning a single game. Wow.

Professional athletes--hockey players, that is, as we shall see in a second--are getting paid big bucks but need to be rewarded with these consolation points.

Teams can proudly proclaim that "this is the greatest season in history" and point to the high point-total that is inflated by those loser points. And perhaps jack up ticket prices too.

But seriously, is there any other league out there amongst the "big four" in North America that awards points to losers?

Nope. Not in Major League Baseball. If you lose a 23-inning marathon, that's too bad. You get nothing in the standings. Just go out and play again the next day (or same day).

Not in basketball. You keep playing until someone loses. And your team could score 150 points in the game and not be rewarded in the standings. If you lose the game.

Not in football. You lose in overtime because your kicker blew it but the other team's didn't. Well, you might have to go home while the other teams play on in the playoffs.

The only other comparable situation would be the Canadian Football League (CFL), where a missed field goal could result in a single point. But the CFL is not really a major league, so I digress.

Anyway, the point here is, the concept of giving points to losing teams is a bit goofy. No other leagues do it.

So why the NHL?

Lots of things don't make sense in the NHL, but this loser point system is one that is so ridiculous that other leagues don't even bother.

This week's posts

Trout, I have maintained my seven-articles-per-day streak.

Toronto Maple Leafs vs Boston preview (Sat, Feb 16) By KP Wee
Minnesota beats Vancouver on Valentine's Day (Fri, Feb 15) By KP Wee
Boston/Miami-comparison of two cities (Wed, Feb 13) By KP Wee
Evgeni Malkin & Penguins' march (Mon, Feb 11) By KP Wee

Well, 4 in 6 are not bad.

All on Bleacher Report at www.bleacherreport.com. Check them out!

Sports Posts: Feb 9 - Feb 15, 2008

Okay, from now on, I am just going to post the links to my, KP Wee's, Bleacher Report posts on here instead of re-posting entire articles. Enjoy!

(By the way, two mistakes last week - one in the Dallas/Vancouver game where I incorrectly ridiculed Markus Naslund, and another one in the Washington post. I strive for perfection this week.)

1) Hockey Day in Ontario: Sens & Leafs win on Saturday (by KP Wee, Feb 9)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9092-NHL-Ottawa_Senators-Toronto_Maple_Leafs-Hockey_Day_in_Ontario_Sens_and_Leafs_both_win-090208?just_published=1

2) Canucks lose to Colorado (by KP Wee, Feb 9)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9099-NHL-Colorado_Avalanche-Vancouver_Canucks-Canucks-Avalanche_Forsberg_should_Now_be_Weary_of_Vancouver

3) Bedard and Mariners (by KP Wee, Feb 10)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9167-MLB-Seattle_Mariners-What_will_Bedard_s_impact_bring_to_the_Mariners_

Caps' rise (and Habs, Flyers), Canucks' fall, New York's championships - on Bleacher Report by me

Instead of announcing it on Overanything, I will just post the links of my articles on here.

See, Trout, I did fulfill my promise and have been posting daily...
This week:
1) Capitals' surprising rise (on Bleacher Report by KP Wee) http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8817-NHL-Washington_Capitals-Surprising_Caps_rise_to_the_top_but_can_they_hang_on_-060208

2) Canucks fall to Florida (on Bleacher Report by KP Wee)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8714-NHL-Vancouver_Canucks-Dallas_Stars-Stars-Canucks_Vancouver_Falls_Short_Against_Dallas-060208

3) Unlikely New York championships (on Bleacher Report by KP Wee)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8941-NFL-MLB-New_York_Yankees-New_York_Mets-Top_Five_Unlikely_championships_in_New_York

First Non-Sports Related Blog here

This site is called "OA2", not "KP's Sports Blog" for a reason. It is meant to have discussions about anything, over anything. Obviously I am the only poster on here, but that's fine.

The topic du jour is about work.

Today we had that "staff meeting" in which Steve had said that we could iron out the issues I brought up with Grace, the school's owner. Hey, who knows, Steve said, perhaps others shared the same thoughts I did too.

But predictably, nothing really came out of this meeting.

See, for over a year, the staff room has been filled with filthy language such as name-calling and racist "jokes". I had avoided the room because I did not want any part of it. Worse, Steve, the director, was part of it. While he did not endorse it, he also didn't discourage it either.

So, during the cold months, I had no choice but to return there to hang out.

And Andrew Claxton was the worse culprit. Andrew called one of my students "Frankinstein" behind his back and took pleasure in the fact that that student was not cool. Of course, Steve let that slide for days.

Andrew was the one who started this "Wizard" comment behind Toby's back when he (Toby) was working here and even after he left. And everyone participated in that nonsense. And Andrew was the one who called people "midgets" and dissed pregnant women/women with children waiting for buses.

And surprisingly, Steve let that all slide.

Then there was the fact that Andrew--according to James--started this "letter" with the rest of the staff to try and start a movement with Grace. The fact that Andrew and his cohorts are way overpaid seemed to have been lost on all of them.

I had to basically sit down with Grace and point out every reason that they were overpaid. And yes, my numbers are right on because I know what's going on. And yet there they were, trying to get more...despite the fact that the school wasn't in good shape to begin with.

I even countered their "letter" with my own letter to Grace, outlining the facts from above. And also I caught Andrew telling a new teacher that he doesn't bother marking tests and just makes (blah blah) out of the paper.

And I communicated this to Steve before, and his response was typical. That "Wizard" comment was supposedly a rallying point, a good bonding thing because they were all united in their feelings towards Toby.

And on Tuesday, after I ripped Andrew for using the word "Frankenstein" yet again, Steve got me to go into a room for a private meeting. Apparently, I had "to watch what (I) say" because it was not appropriate. The funny thing is--and I use the word "funny" in a sarcastic way--since when was "Frankenstein" appropriate? "Wizard"?

Funny how that works.

So naturally in today's meeting, Cathryn pointed out that there shouldn't be loud radio being played (me), and I countered that I do this to block out the comments that Andrew and Co. make.

No surprise, but Andrew did not once say a word as I outlined my beef. Not a word of acknowledgement that he won't do it again. Nothing. He didn't retract from his statements. No surprise there.

So, basically I was not allowed to play my radio again unless I put on earphones.

Typical.

And one other thing out of Tuesday's private meeting with Steve brought out the fact that he did not appreciate my going to Grace with my concerns. See, the thing is, if he didn't want that, why didn't he deal with it in the first place?

It's obvious that if he was a part of the problem, then wouldn't it be natural to seek a third party?

"Watch what (I) say" - that is so laughable.

Did not appreciate me going to Grace. And yet, when I did a proposal for school activities--on my own volition, without anyone asking me to--and tried to get Steve to read it, his reaction was just show it to Grace. Brilliant.

And don't forget, Cathryn and two others were the ones dissing management after BC Day. They didn't know that BC Day was a stat and when we were paid for it, there they were snickering at how dumb management was, and "let's not tell them (that we were overpaid)". Classy.

Giants' improbable Super Bowl win ends a remarkable comeback season

(Also posted on Bleacher Report by KP Wee a day earlier.)

The New York Giants have stunned the world with a 17-14 triumph over the previously unbeaten New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.

Who would have thought? Really, please stand up if you thought at any point of the season that the Giants were going to be crowned champions.

Nobody thought this was possible. Certainly not me.

Remember, in the pre-season, controversy started when former Giant Tiki Barber—who had been critical of head coach Tom Coughlin in the past—trashed QB Eli Manning, criticizing his ex-teammate's lack of leadership during the previous season. Certainly, Barber had been in the Giants' locker room through thick and thin. Surely the criticisms by Barber, the Giants' all-time leading rusher, had to be valid.

Did the Giants have a prayer with a quarterback who couldn't lead or win?

Things didn't get any better at the start of the season; the Giants went 0-2, getting outscored 80-48 by the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers. Most thought Coughlin would get the boot sooner rather than later, especially if the G-men didn't turn things around quickly.

Then they had a date with the 2-0 Washington Redskins at FedEx Field, and no one gave the Giants a shot. And worse, after facing the Redskins, New York would face another divisional opponent in the Eagles—who demolished the Lions' defense for 56 points in Week Three—followed by the Jets.

An 0-5 start wasn't out of the realm of possibility.

And even worse? Thanks to the NFL's ridiculous marketing plan and schedule, the Giants then had to travel to London, England to face the Dolphins in Week Eight.

But following the 0-2 start, the Giants didn't quit.

Despite falling behind by two TDs in hostile FedEx Field, the Giants chose to rally.

Against Washington, the Giants came back from a 17-3 first-half deficit, outscoring the Redskins 21-zip thanks to two one-yard TD runs by Reuben Droughns and Manning's 33-yard TD pass to Plaxico Burress.

And the G-men's defense came up big with a dramatic goal-line stand on fourth-and-goal to snuff out a late Washington rally at the Giants' one-yard line.

And with that first win under their belt, the Giants reeled off five straight wins and had a 6-2 record, but most thought it was a mirage. After all, several of those victories came against the worst teams in the NFL (Jets, Falcons, 49ers, and Dolphins).

New York was 6-2, but the class of the NFC East—and the entire conference—was certainly Tony Romo, Terrell Owens, and the 7-1 Cowboys.

Coming off the sextet of wins, the Giants squared off against the 7-1 Cowboys at Giants Stadium on November 11th. Romo, however, threw four TDs—two in the second half to Owens—for the visitors, and the Giants fell 31-20, practically handing the Cowboys the division title.

And Giants Stadium turned out to be home-field disadvantage, as New York then fell embarrassingly to the Vikings (a 41-17 meltdown to a 4-6 squad) and Redskins (a 22-10 defeat at the hands of a 6-7 team) and dropped to 9-5.

Both were huge blows to the team's morale: in the Minnesota debacle, Manning threw four interceptions, three of which were returned for TDs, while in the defeat against the 'Skins, the Giants also lost tight-end Jeremy Shockey for the season with a broken left fibula.

Still, the Giants were playoff-bound after a big come-from-behind victory at Ralph Wilson Stadium in Week 16, beating the Bills 38-21 under terrible weather conditions. The Giants survived a 14-0 first-quarter deficit and put the game away with three TDs in the wind and snow-filled contest.

Then came that epic Saturday night game against the mighty Patriots in Week 17. With a playoff spot clinched, the Giants elected to play their starters in an attempt to thwart New England's dreams of a perfect 16-0 season and to prevent the Pats' duo of Tom Brady and Randy Moss from setting individual records.

With seemingly the entire world watching (trying to witness history by the Patriots), the Giants showed everyone that they had game. New York took a 28-16 lead but eventually lost 38-35—allowing the Patriots, Brady, and Moss to set records during the contest.

Still, despite that effort against the Patriots in the season finale, not many expected big things from the G-men in the playoffs.

While some thought New York could beat an unimpressive Tampa Bay Buccaneers team at Raymond James Stadium in the Wild Card round, naysayers pointed to Bucs' QB Jeff Garcia's 2-0 playoff record against the Giants. After all, Garcia had led the Eagles to a playoff victory against the Giants a year ago and had engineered a remarkable 24-point comeback—the second-largest come-from-behind win in NFL playoff history—while with the 49ers in the 2003.

And Manning had never won a playoff game, and Coughlin had never won one with the Giants.

Nonetheless, the Giants handled the Bucs and moved on to Irving, Texas to face the NFC's top seed, the Cowboys. No one gave the Giants a chance against the Cowboys team that had already shredded New York's defense twice during the season.

However, Manning again proved his critics wrong with two touchdown passes—both to Amani Toomer—and no interceptions, and the Giants clinched the game when R.W. McQuarters intercepted the Cowboys' Romo with seconds remaining. The Giants had a 21-17 win and were moving on to the NFC title game in Green Bay.

And next in Wisconsin, the 13-3 Packers were supposed to be the better team, and had two other intangibles going their way: a legend in Brett Favre playing in legendary Lambeau Field.

The entire country seemingly wanted to see a New England-Green Bay Super Bowl because of the media and fans thought that seeing Favre going up against the Patriots would be a compelling story.

But the Giants didn't pay attention to all that.

The Giants intercepted Favre when it mattered, and despite Lawrence Tynes' two missed field goals, managed to pull off an overtime upset victory to vault themselves to the Super Bowl.
Starting out 0-2? No problem. The Giants made it to the playoffs.

Facing the number one seed in the NFC Divisional round against a team that had already beaten them twice? Well, the third time was the charm.

Going up against a three-time MVP in the NFC Championship Game in Green Bay? No biggie; they picked him off twice and won the game.

And then knocking off arguably the greatest team in NFL history, the previously 18-0 New England Patriots with aspirations to become just the second team ever to finish a season undefeated.

People laughed when Burress predicted the 14-point underdog Giants would win the Super Bowl during media week.

This extra week between the Conference title games and Super Bowl was supposed to hurt the Giants more than the Patriots. After all, the Giants' momentum was supposedly going to be hampered by this unnecessary bye week.

Brady and his record-setting offense were supposed to walk all over the Giants.

For three quarters in Super Bowl XLII though, the Giants' defense came up huge against the Patriots. The Giants then took a 10-7 lead in the fourth quarter, seemingly ready to deny the Pats their dream of perfection.

But once again, most thought it was déjà vu when Brady hooked up with Moss with three minutes left. It was the same duo that provided the fourth-quarter go-ahead score for the Pats in Week 17. This was exactly what New England had been doing all season long.

But the Giants again rallied, as they had all season, and when Manning found Burress in the end zone with under a minute left for the winning score—they were world champions.

Who would have scripted this?

That's why games are decided on the field.

The Giants proved that in 2007-08.

Horcoff's loss crippling for Oilers

Center Shawn Horcoff of the Oilers apparently will miss the rest of the NHL season.

Word is that Horcoff, who will have surgery on his left shoulder this week in effect ending his season, aggravated the injury during the NHL All-Star game over a week ago.

Horcoff, who was on pace to top 30 goals for the first time in his career, seemed destined to set career highs in goals (22) and had an outside shot at surpassing his high in points (73) until this setback.

According to media reports, Horcoff first sustained the shoulder injury on October 12. And the Oilers' leading scorer had been putting off surgery throughout the season.

But hearing word that a premier player (Horcoff leads the team with 21 goals and 50 points in 53 games this season) had to miss the rest of the year--perhaps crippling his team's playoff chances--thanks to an injury suffered in a meaningless mid-season game that no one takes seriously must make fans cringe.

Even if you don't root for the Oilers, you can't help but feel their pain. Unless of course, you are a Flames fan.

Would Horcoff's season have been extended longer if he hadn't participated in the All-Star game?

That is debatable.

Horcoff may well have aggrevated the injury at another point during the season.

But surely he could have suited up for at least a few more games--helping the Oilers get some valuable points in the standings--had he not dressed for the Western Conference against the East in Atlanta on January 27th.

There have been some who have suggested in the past--most notably Bob McCown from Prime Time Sports--that the NHL just scrap the annual All-Star contest, and it is injuries like this that just make you wonder why the league even bothers.

Is there any meaning to the All-Star game, which unlike baseball's mid-summer classic, does not guarantee the winning conference an extra home game in the Stanley Cup Final?

Why didn't the Oilers, knowing that Horcoff already had a bad shoulder, demand that he skip the game in the first place?

Why on earth did Horcoff even bother attending, instead of joining others (including Sidney Crosby, Henrik Zetterberg, Dany Heatley, Roberto Luongo and Martin Brodeur) who chose to incline the invitation for various reasons?

Obviously, Horcoff doesn't have the elite status as the other all-stars who missed the all-star weekend, but losing him does not bode well for a struggling Oilers club from here on out.

Now, it will be a tough road for the Oilers, who are tied for 13th place in the Conference with a 23-26-5 record and 51 points, on the fringe of playoff contention being 8 points back of 8th-place Nashville.

Without Horcoff, the Oilers will probably be battling to stay out of the basement of the entire league instead of battling for a playoff spot.

Los Angeles is last overall in the league with 45 points, followed by Tampa Bay at 47.

A devatasting blow to the Oilers indeed.

More fun times for Canucks Haters: Vancouver chokes in Florida

Ah... fun times again last night (Feb. 1st) for Canucks Haters like myself.

The Vancouver Canucks again fell to an inferior team, dropping a 4-3 shootout decision to the Florida Panthers in Sunrise, Florida.

And this time, the Canucks found new ways to lose.

Vancouver, who has had to play from behind recently--they just endured a six-game stretch at the end of January in which they failed to hold a lead at any point--and had let the opposition score first in seven straight before breaking the streak earlier this week, never trailed against Florida.

In fact, this time the Canucks blew three one-goal leads and fell to 2-6-2 in their last ten games with this latest defeat. And the defensive-minded Canucks were badly outshot in the third period (15-5), allowing Stephen Weiss to get the tying goal with 6:14 remaining.

Second, overpaid Canucks captain Markus Naslund was awarded a penalty shot with time winding down in overtime, but couldn't beat Panthers goalie Tomas Vokoun for the winner. Oh, isn't Naslund paid boatloads of money to score big goals? Yup, 17 goals and 41 points in 53 games for the $6-million-a-year captain. Incredibly, the SportsNet.ca and TSN websites are listing Naslund as "hot" for his measily three points in his last three games, randomly assigning those useless labels without looking at the big picture. But then, I guess that point-per-game pace in his last three sure beats his season totals.

Third, the Canucks continued to let defenseman Alexander Edler partake in shootouts, and the goat from the previous night's loss in Tampa Bay--he made a bad pass which led to the Lightning's go-ahead goal--couldn't deliver. Yes, Edler had gotten two shootout game-winners in January, but if the Canucks are counting on him on a nightly basis, they are in big trouble.

Fourth, the Canucks were brutal on face-offs, winning only 35% off the draw. And they allowed 43 shots, making Roberto Luongo busy in the Vancouver net.

Ah yes...Luongo. The Canucks' superstar in goal, who played five seasons in a Panthers uniform, was supposed to be the difference in the game. After all, Luongo, the $6.5-million man, was a finalist for both the Hart and Vezina Trophies. And he was playing in Florida for the first time since being acquired by Vancouver to boot. Athletes returning to their former stomping grounds in a new uniform often found ways to stick it to their old club.

And the Panthers came into the contest tied for 13th place out of a 15-team Eastern Conference with a 22-25-5 record, just two points ahead of last-place Tampa Bay, who by the way, took care of the Canucks a night earlier.

Yes, Luongo did his job with 40 saves. However, he couldn't prevent his team from losing yet another game.

Nonetheless, despite the loss, the Canucks still managed to move ahead of Nashville in the standings, tied for 7th place with the Avalanche in the Western Conference because the NHL has a dumb rule about rewarding shootout losers with a sympathy point. (Really now, why on earth should a losing team get a point? But that would be the topic for another day.)

But hopefully the Canucks' recent slump will stop dellusional fans in B.C. from continuing their nonsense Mats Sundin (Leafs) or Peter Forsberg (unrestricted free agent) daydreams.

And if either Sundin or Forsberg really had any inclination of wanting to play in Vancouver, surely those thoughts have evaporated by now. Why on earth would Forsberg sign with a non-contender like the Canucks if he wants to win another Stanley Cup? And I wouldn't say that being a 7th or 8th-place outfit is a selling point to convince Sundin to waive his no-trade clause and head out to the West Coast. Surely neither Forsberg nor Sundin would go the Curtis Joseph route, with Cujo choosing to sign with the Calgary Flames, not exactly a legitimate Cup contender.

In the meantime, Canucks fans will always laugh at Florida for giving away All-Star Luongo to Vancouver in exchange for forward Todd Bertuzzi (now with Anaheim), goalie Alex Auld (now with Boston), and defenseman Bryan Allen in the June 26, 2006 trade. That could go down as one of the most one-sided deals in hockey history, right up there with the acquisition of Naslund from Pittsburgh for the immortal Alek Stojanov (6 points in 45 NHL games after the deal).

Come to think of it, maybe the value of those two trades mentioned above are over-stated by Canucks fans. Luongo, who I predict will never lead the Canucks to a Stanley Cup, was outplayed by rookie Karri Ramo a night earlier and couldn't protect a third-period lead last night. And Naslund, the Canucks' all-time leading scorer who is over the hill, was on the bench during the shootout, passed over for the great Edler.

Okay, all the joking aside, the Canucks clearly won the Luongo trade.

At least for one night, the Panthers get the last laugh.

Canucks Haters like myself, also get another good laugh as well for another night.

Unfortunately, the fun stops for a few days. The Canucks have three days off before taking on the Stars in Dallas on Tuesday night, meaning there will be no good times for at least half a week.

But come Tuesday night, hopefully there will be another post on the Canucks by this Canucks Hater.

2008: Litsch a key for the Blue Jays?

I never thought I would say this, but I actually feel sorry for the Toronto Blue Jays. I have been for years now.

There was a time when I hated the Blue Jays, and that was during their back-to-back championship years (1992-1993) when they had the resources to outspend everyone and pick up expensive free agents (Jack Morris, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, to name a few) and hired guns (David Cone, Rickey Henderson). And whatever trades they pulled off seemed to benefit them (Devon White, Roberto Alomar, Joe Carter).

But the Blue Jays, who have not made it back to post-season play since 1993, have been stuck playing in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees.

As a fan who roots for underdogs, my hatred for Toronto fizzled away. After all, my Red Sox had already won it all in 2004 (before winning again last year), so there was no reason to dislike the Blue Jays.

Toronto seemed to have made progress in 2006 finishing in second place above the Red Sox. And the Jays also started 2007 well, and they were in contention and had a shot--albeit a long one--at the AL Wild Card in the final months because of their pitching.

Toronto eventually finished with a 83-79 record in 2007, winning four fewer games than a year earlier.

And it looks like their pitching will have to be a key once again if they are to contend in 2008. Unless realignment happens, the Blue Jays will probably not make the playoffs again, given that the Red Sox and Yankees have taken to try and one-up each other during the past few years.

Of course, games are played on the field and not on paper, and if Toronto gets decent pitching, they will have a shot at the Wild Card.

It would be a nice contrast for sure, though, say if the Yankees miss the post-season. I, for one, am tired of seeing the pinstripers play October baseball annually.

Back to Toronto's pitching, long-time Jays radio broadcaster Jerry Howarth said on the Fan 590 this week that he believes Jesse Litsch (7-9 record, 3.81 ERA) is the best fifth starter in major league baseball.

That's a huge compliment, a bold statement actually, considering Litsch was a rookie in 2007, and didn't make his debut until May 15th. Litsch had his moments, and one highlight came against Josh Beckett and the Red Sox, a 2-1 win in July.

Litsch will no doubt be a huge upgrade over the train wreck that was Josh Towers (5-10, 5.38). I mean, anyone can do better than Towers, right? However, Litsch will probably not duplicate the numbers of A.J. Burnett, who despite being unable to stay healthy, still managed a 10-8 mark and 3.75 ERA.

Baltimore lefty Erik Bedard, who at one point was mentioned as a possibility with the Blue Jays, probably won't be traded to Toronto. Though the Jays probably wouldn't need him anyway, if the optimism for Litsch's contributions is legit.

So, if Litsch is going to deliver as the fifth starter, as Howarth predicted, what about the rest of the staff?

The top three in the rotation seem to be as solid a 1-2-3 punch as any in baseball, if they all stay healthy and pitch the way they did last season.

Here's a look at what those top three did for Toronto last season:

Blue Jays ace Roy "Doc" Halladay had an off-year by his own standards, going 16-7 with a rather high 3.71 ERA (for a staff ace) in 2007. "Doc", who started the season well, ran into problems in the middle of the year. He had a span of three outings in a four-start stretch where he gave up seven runs or more each time out, and also went on the DL on May 11th. However, Halladay rebounded in the second half, going 6-3 with a 2.75 in his final 14 starts and averaging 7.95 innings per outing over that span with 5 complete games.

While Halladay is no longer a strikeout pitcher and may never regain his 2003 Cy Young form, he is still capable of winning 15 to 18 games in 2008, provided that he stays healthy and gets enough run support. Halladay has shown that he could still go deep in ballgames, pitching a total of 7 complete games and averaging over 7 innings per start.

Dustin McGowan (12-10, 4.08) showed flashes of brilliance, tossing a near-no-hitter against Colorado at the Rogers Centre on June 24th. McGowan also had 15 quality starts (6+ IP, 3 R or fewer), and had 6 outings in which he allowed one or fewer runs. For the season, he allowed fewer hits than innings pitched (7.74 H/9 IP) and struck out 144 in 169.2 innings. And McGown showed that he could at least pitch against the beasts of the AL East, going a combined 3-3 against the Yankees and Red Sox. McGowan posted a respectable 7-5 record and a 3.29 ERA over his final 14 starts of the year.

Shaun Marcum (12-6, 4.13 overall) was another Blue Jay that impressed in 2007, although it didn't start out that way. Marcum began the year in the bullpen, pitching to a 6.06 ERA in 13 appearances. On Mother's Day (May 13th), Marcum was put into the rotation, and he delievered with 6 no-hit, no-run innings with seven strikeouts against the Devil Rays, but the Blue Jays lost 2-1. Ironically, Marcum would have five starts during the year without allowing any runs in 6+ innings pitched, but would have only a 2-0 record with three no-decisions in those appearances. Marcum, who remained in the rotation the rest of the way (and made 25 starts), was 9-2 with a 2.91 ERA as a starter after a 2-1 win over the Angels on August 15th. He faded a bit down the stretch, posting a 7.47 ERA in his final 7 starts, but still won 11 games (with a 3.91 ERA) as a starter.

Halladay is a "given", a starter who would give the Jays a shot every five days, and if McGowan and Marcum can duplicate their 2007 successes, that would give Toronto three dependable arms in the rotation.

So, as long as Halladay, McGowan, Marcum, and Litsch do their jobs, the Blue Jays will have a shot. If stopper B.J. Ryan can make a comeback from Tommy John surgery, and Jeremy Accardo (2.14 ERA), Scott Downs (2.17) and Casey Janssen (2.35) can come through again out of the pen, that would take a lot of pressure off the starters.

And if newcomer Scott Rolen (acquired in the Troy Glaus trade two weeks ago) can chip in offensively along with David Eckstein, Alex Rios, and Aaron Hill, all the better for the Jays. Toronto will also need old-timers Matt Stairs and Frank Thomas to deliver long balls and solid batting averages again as they did in 2007.

Lyle Overbay (10 HR, .240), who was re-signed to a four-year deal two weeks ago, and Vernon Wells (16 HR, .245), who had signed a contract extension prior to the 2007 season, were two busts last season. Both will have to have big comeback years.

But the pitching has to come together, and assuming Howarth is right, Litsch will have to be one of the keys.

If so, the Jays might contend for the Wild Card.

If not, GM J.P. Ricciardi's tenure in Toronto will be looked upon as a bust.

Another Brilliant Game by the Canucks..... and Canucks Lovers such as me Love it!

Thursday night (Jan. 31st) was another great one for a self-proclaimed "Canucks Hater" like myself.

The Vancouver Canucks blew another game, falling 4-3 to the lowly Tampa Bay Lightning.

The Lightning squad went into the game dead last in the Eastern Conference (and only two points ahead of the NHL's worst team, the Los Angeles Kings), sporting a 20-26-5 record despite playing in the Southeast Division, the league's weakest quintet.

The 2003-04 champion Lightning had won only 5 of their previous 16 games going in.

Yet there were Tampa Bay's big guns coming out firing, with Brad Richards (1 goal, 2 assists), Martin St. Louis (3 assists), and Vincent Lecavalier (go-ahead goal late in the second period) all contributing offensively.

Lecavalier even got involved in a skirmish early in the game with the Canucks' Alex Burrows--and won.

Meanwhile, the Canucks' so-called top guns, the Sedin's, weren't a factor, with Daniel Sedin picking up a cheap assist on Alex Edler's goal with 25 seconds left when the game was pretty much over--in Tampa Bay's favor. Henrik was held without a point.

Edler had that late goal, but was the goat who led to Lecavalier's go-ahead tally. Lecavalier's 31st goal came from a pass from St. Louis, who intercepted Edler's clearing attempt late in the second.

Oh, this time the Canucks scored first, with overrated defenseman Luc Bourdon scoring just a couple minutes into the game. Of course, they blew a couple of one-goal leads and fell behind 4-2 by the third period.

Don't people say that defense and goal-tending trumps offense? Wasn't Vancouver's defensive style and goalkeeping supposed to shut down the Lightning's vaunted offense? Nope, not this round.

The Canucks' $6.5-million goalie Roberto Luongo, who opted to skip the All-Star Game last weekend and got permission from the team to miss Vancouver's previous game with Dallas, was outplayed by a rookie (Karri Ramo) in the Tampa goal. And by the way, the rookie earns ten times less money than Luongo, at $650,000 per year.

On a recent radio talk show in Vancouver, fans were asked if they cared that Luongo was allowed to stay in Florida to be with his pregnant wife--who by the way, isn't due until playoff time in April--for the Dallas game.

And an overwhelming majority (around 80%) supported the goalie's request and the team's grant. Luongo deserved that time off, fans said, especially since this was for family reasons.

Put it this way: if the Canucks miss the playoffs by one or two points, we can all look back and say that perhaps missing their goalie against Dallas game cost them. And who knows, perhaps this is the midst of a long slump for Vancouver, who could have avoided this had their most expensive player (Luongo) decided to play against the Stars.

Injuries? Yes sure, the Canucks and their fans can cry about a host of players not in the line-up, such as D-men Sami Salo and Willie Mitchell, to name a few. But please, let's not use that as an excuse.

Didn't Dallas miss a number of players too in the last game, most notably defenseman Sergei Zubov and forward Jere Lehtinen?

And didn't the Stars vanquish the Canucks?

So this injury excuse doesn't wash.

Vancouver is now tied for eighth in the Western Conference with Nashville. Both have 26-21-5 records and 57 points after 52 games after the Predators beat Columbus, who has 56 points.

As a Canucks Hater like myself, last night was another beauty.

Vancouver doesn't have time to lick its chops, with another game tonight against the Florida Panthers (22-25-5), who are no better than Tampa Bay in the standings.