A story surfaced this week about more scammers claiming victims on Facebook.
Well, sooner or later, anyone would fall victim to such predators.
I am not one who shys away from speaking my mind and the truth about things I've witnessed, so...
This brings me to a true story of my experience with Suzanna Chan a dozen years ago.
Yes, there are many "Suzanna Chans" out there, so I will clarify by saying this is the one who graduated from Windermere Secondary in East Vancouver back in 1995.
A year after graduation, Suzanna, who knew I was interested in her friend Vicky Lam, approached me to "help" her out.
Young and naive at the time, why would I suspect anything was fishy? I mean, people at that age trusted each other--okay, I guess I was really naive.
Suzanna claimed that she didn't have enough Internet usage time with her university unix email account--because there was supposed to be a maximum 10 hours allowed for home usage with those email accounts--so, she wanted to know if she could use my account instead. You know, double her access time.
She added that she wanted to correspond with some guys via email too, and didn't want to use her own name and account. (And she showed me those emails too--some guy actually sent her a $10 Amazon gift voucher.)
There was some verbal agreement that she would help set me up with her friend, so I thought, hey, why not?
After all, I did not use my university email account that much, and not really thinking about it, agreed.
The other kicker was that Suzanna knew that a friend of mine was interested in her buddy Ann Kwan, and so this way, could perhaps try to test him using my identity.
But, to make a long story short, Suzanna then later borrowed $700 from me, claiming that she had lost some money from bad investments and didn't want her family to know. Even though she came from a well-off family and had lots of other friends, she picked on me--again, fishy but I didn't really catch on to it.
Don't tell anyone, was what she told me. (Anytime someone says that, run.)
And she made comments like she didn't want to be seen with me in public, and she mis-pronounced my name on purpose, every chance she got. (Much like the alleged stories of how Steinbrenner referred to Showalter as "Bucky.")
Next thing you knew, by the due date, she avoided contact with me. When I called her house, there was one time I remembered she hung up on me and other times her little sister or other family members said she wasn't around.
I finally did manage to track her down and told her off, but the damage was done.
It was a while later, when I got a phone call from campus RCMP.
The constable got me in there and accused me of sending harrassing emails--and I immediately suspected who was behind it. I had no proof, but I named both Suzanna and her friend, and told the constable that I had given out my password info to SC, who might have given it to her buddy.
The other thing was, a little time later, I suddenly got blacklisted from Allan Chee and his gang--the group of guys that I had participated in in an online simulation league called the BCHL.
I remember reading a blurb on the Internet about three years ago, about some girl and guy with the same names (ie. SC and AC) living together at an East Van address.
That made some sense to me.
Anyway, I have not contacted any of those people for over 10 years now, and I have no proof who sent out the emails using my account. That part of the story is pure speculation.
But one thing for sure was, I was royally duped by Suzanna Chan. Again, I was young and naive, but it just goes to show, anyone could be tricked.
12 years after the fact, I am not accusing anyone here because I have no evidence. However, again, the truth of the matter was, I was tricked on two occasions, so that's what I am emphasizing here.
Anyone could be scammed.
Hope that it won't be you readers out there.
Have a good day.
The Hockey Farmer / Showing Their Scales
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Big companies stealing money from people
So, even the big companies are stealing from little folk like me. And, a famous pizzaria is treating customers like crap.
First things first, the big company in question is a well-known telephone service provider. Its name starts with the letter "T", and let's just say the name rhymes with "Phyllis."
So, I was behind in payment for this phone company on my residential line, and made a lumpsum payment of $158 on March 17 by Internet banking.
Only my next bill came--dated some 12 days later--saying I still owed that money.
I immediately called the company to verify the balance. Yup, that payment was not received. And since it was already nighttime, there were no live representatives to help me with this.
I double checked on the bank account and realized that I had erroneously sent the payment to the WRONG phone account. I had sent the payment to my inactive mobility account, which had been closed for a couple years.
So, the next morning, I called up the company and asked them to transfer the $158 from the inactive mobility account to the normal residential account. Yes, it was my fault, my error, but you would think in this day and age with fast transfer of accounts and such, this was not hard to fix.
Only the customer service rep told me he couldn't fix this, and had to transfer me to the Mobility department.
I explained my problem to the rep there, and she put me on hold for 10 minutes--ensuring I would be late for work (since I made the phone call at home).
(And when I was on hold, I was thinking that since the head teacher is consistently late himself, I wasn't too stressed out about the fact that I was going to be late. So there...he can't possibly say anything to me otherwise it would be hypocritical.)
So, 10 minutes later, the CSR came back and said they NEVER received the payment!! She claimed that I would have to call up my bank and do a "stop payment" because they (the phone company) "never received it."
Of course, very easy to verify - I called up the bank and was told that T---lus DID receive the payment, and it might have gone into their general account--ie. the lost account where misguided funds go to--and would send in a request on my behalf to get that refunded back.
So, basically, this phone service provider was ready to just STEAL my money and shrug it off like they didn't receive it. If I didn't check my own records--and waste a lot of time in the process by following up and being on hold, etc.--I would have been duped.
So, thanks for nothing, "Phyllis."
Anyway, never did I, at any point during this phone conversations, lose my temper or yell at anyone. If I weren't a mild-mannered person, I probably would have lashed out.
But on the same day, I went to this pizza place for lunch. Let's call it "D's" Pizza. It is, after all, a big American franchise.
Now, I don't know first hand if the cashier was having a bad day, or she simply hated her job, but she never at any point crack a smile to greet or talk to me.
When I asked her a question about toppings, she was NOT friendly and her tone/attitude was like I was asking a dumb question.
No sign or respect at all.
And when I gave her the debit card to pay for the order, she swiped it and put the card down, and didn't even bother to pass the debit pin device (whatever it's called) to me.
So I stood there for a couple seconds thinking it wasn't processed yet and waiting for her to hand it to me, only to realize she wasn't going to do it. I guess too big of her to do something simple.
Okay, again, if I weren't an easy-going person, she would have gotten an earful.
So, once again, these types of incidents have proven to me that these big corporations/companies are faceless, gutless outfits that just care about your money and don't bother to provide good service.
Well, if we're going to play this game, next time, if I go back to that pizza place, she ain't getting my card. She's going to get a handful of pennies thrown down on the counter--the kind of respect that she deserves.
First things first, the big company in question is a well-known telephone service provider. Its name starts with the letter "T", and let's just say the name rhymes with "Phyllis."
So, I was behind in payment for this phone company on my residential line, and made a lumpsum payment of $158 on March 17 by Internet banking.
Only my next bill came--dated some 12 days later--saying I still owed that money.
I immediately called the company to verify the balance. Yup, that payment was not received. And since it was already nighttime, there were no live representatives to help me with this.
I double checked on the bank account and realized that I had erroneously sent the payment to the WRONG phone account. I had sent the payment to my inactive mobility account, which had been closed for a couple years.
So, the next morning, I called up the company and asked them to transfer the $158 from the inactive mobility account to the normal residential account. Yes, it was my fault, my error, but you would think in this day and age with fast transfer of accounts and such, this was not hard to fix.
Only the customer service rep told me he couldn't fix this, and had to transfer me to the Mobility department.
I explained my problem to the rep there, and she put me on hold for 10 minutes--ensuring I would be late for work (since I made the phone call at home).
(And when I was on hold, I was thinking that since the head teacher is consistently late himself, I wasn't too stressed out about the fact that I was going to be late. So there...he can't possibly say anything to me otherwise it would be hypocritical.)
So, 10 minutes later, the CSR came back and said they NEVER received the payment!! She claimed that I would have to call up my bank and do a "stop payment" because they (the phone company) "never received it."
Of course, very easy to verify - I called up the bank and was told that T---lus DID receive the payment, and it might have gone into their general account--ie. the lost account where misguided funds go to--and would send in a request on my behalf to get that refunded back.
So, basically, this phone service provider was ready to just STEAL my money and shrug it off like they didn't receive it. If I didn't check my own records--and waste a lot of time in the process by following up and being on hold, etc.--I would have been duped.
So, thanks for nothing, "Phyllis."
Anyway, never did I, at any point during this phone conversations, lose my temper or yell at anyone. If I weren't a mild-mannered person, I probably would have lashed out.
But on the same day, I went to this pizza place for lunch. Let's call it "D's" Pizza. It is, after all, a big American franchise.
Now, I don't know first hand if the cashier was having a bad day, or she simply hated her job, but she never at any point crack a smile to greet or talk to me.
When I asked her a question about toppings, she was NOT friendly and her tone/attitude was like I was asking a dumb question.
No sign or respect at all.
And when I gave her the debit card to pay for the order, she swiped it and put the card down, and didn't even bother to pass the debit pin device (whatever it's called) to me.
So I stood there for a couple seconds thinking it wasn't processed yet and waiting for her to hand it to me, only to realize she wasn't going to do it. I guess too big of her to do something simple.
Okay, again, if I weren't an easy-going person, she would have gotten an earful.
So, once again, these types of incidents have proven to me that these big corporations/companies are faceless, gutless outfits that just care about your money and don't bother to provide good service.
Well, if we're going to play this game, next time, if I go back to that pizza place, she ain't getting my card. She's going to get a handful of pennies thrown down on the counter--the kind of respect that she deserves.
This week's posts- April '08
Posts this week on BR:
1) Red Sox lose third straight at Rogers Centre- 04/06/08
2) Red Sox lose thanks to Snyder... - 04/05/08
3) Bruins-Habs AGAIN- 04/05/08
4) Henrik to Daniel..score?- 04/04/08
5) Anderson (Panthers) kills Hurricanes- 04/04/08
6) Leafs-Sens preview- 04/03/08
All can be found on http://bleacherreport.com/users/2135-KP_Wee or just click on the "Favourite Links" on the left.
1) Red Sox lose third straight at Rogers Centre- 04/06/08
2) Red Sox lose thanks to Snyder... - 04/05/08
3) Bruins-Habs AGAIN- 04/05/08
4) Henrik to Daniel..score?- 04/04/08
5) Anderson (Panthers) kills Hurricanes- 04/04/08
6) Leafs-Sens preview- 04/03/08
All can be found on http://bleacherreport.com/users/2135-KP_Wee or just click on the "Favourite Links" on the left.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
I am the best
Once again, I have shown my abilities when it comes to my job. Regardless of whether or not I get along with other fellow teachers, that's all irrelevant.
Yesterday during the graduation celebrations, I was told by a student (MK) that I am the No. 1 teacher out of all the ones that she has been taught by in Canada. No one at the table disagreed.
Why? Passion for teaching, well-preparedness, and so on.
Once again, I can look myself in the mirror and say that I care about what I do, and I do it well.
Shame on all those teachers who play the "I-don't-make-enough-money-so-I-shouldn't-try-hard" card. I don't work FOR those idiots. I am certainly not part of their gang.
And thus, the fact that I can do my job well makes me continue staying there, despite the fact that I could very well have done something that pays more.
Am I stupid? Well, if so, that's fine. I don't care what others among my peers think, to begin with.
As far as the market research stuff, I am still - in my humble opinion - doing well as team leader. So, status quo there too.
Yesterday during the graduation celebrations, I was told by a student (MK) that I am the No. 1 teacher out of all the ones that she has been taught by in Canada. No one at the table disagreed.
Why? Passion for teaching, well-preparedness, and so on.
Once again, I can look myself in the mirror and say that I care about what I do, and I do it well.
Shame on all those teachers who play the "I-don't-make-enough-money-so-I-shouldn't-try-hard" card. I don't work FOR those idiots. I am certainly not part of their gang.
And thus, the fact that I can do my job well makes me continue staying there, despite the fact that I could very well have done something that pays more.
Am I stupid? Well, if so, that's fine. I don't care what others among my peers think, to begin with.
As far as the market research stuff, I am still - in my humble opinion - doing well as team leader. So, status quo there too.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
New Posts this week (end of March)
1) A look at the Northwest Division (March 25, 08)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14651-NHL-Florida_Panthers-Calgary_Flames-Colorado_Avalanche-A_mini-look_at_the_Canucks_last_two_outings_Who_will_win_the_wild_Northwest_-250308
2) Boston-Oakland in Japan (March 25, 08)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14534-MLB-Boston_Red_Sox-Oakland_Athletics-Red_Sox-Athletics_Boston_Wins_in_Japan_Thanks_to_Vet_and_Rookie-250308
3) Stars bashing (March 23, 08)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14270-NHL-Dallas_Stars-Dallas_Hockey_Falling_Stars_Lose_Again-230308
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14651-NHL-Florida_Panthers-Calgary_Flames-Colorado_Avalanche-A_mini-look_at_the_Canucks_last_two_outings_Who_will_win_the_wild_Northwest_-250308
2) Boston-Oakland in Japan (March 25, 08)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14534-MLB-Boston_Red_Sox-Oakland_Athletics-Red_Sox-Athletics_Boston_Wins_in_Japan_Thanks_to_Vet_and_Rookie-250308
3) Stars bashing (March 23, 08)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14270-NHL-Dallas_Stars-Dallas_Hockey_Falling_Stars_Lose_Again-230308
Friday, March 21, 2008
Posts this week on Bleacher
Wow, is it really March 21st already??!? That means it's been 10 days since I last posted on here, and I am starting to pull a "Jessup." Hahaha.... truth be told, it's been once again very busy for me as I've had to do my teaching gig along with the market research, plus polish off novella no. 2 and submit articles to Bleacher Report.
Nonetheless, here are this week's posts on Bleacher -- check them out at http://www.bleacherreport.com/.
1a) Bruins, Flyers, Sabres look to make playoffs - March 21
1b) Bruins bashing - March 20
2) Bashing on teams that pass up on Bonds - March 18
3) Dallas Stars bashing - March 16
4) Sharks & Rangers' streaks - March 15
5) Phoenix's rise - March 14
6) Detroit beats Dallas - March 14
7) Capitals bashing - March 11
I promise to post again before Jessup's next one on OA.com!
Nonetheless, here are this week's posts on Bleacher -- check them out at http://www.bleacherreport.com/.
1a) Bruins, Flyers, Sabres look to make playoffs - March 21
1b) Bruins bashing - March 20
2) Bashing on teams that pass up on Bonds - March 18
3) Dallas Stars bashing - March 16
4) Sharks & Rangers' streaks - March 15
5) Phoenix's rise - March 14
6) Detroit beats Dallas - March 14
7) Capitals bashing - March 11
I promise to post again before Jessup's next one on OA.com!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
This week's posts, just for Trout
Well, another busy week. I've lost count, Trout, but I am sure it's close to 50-50.
Anyway, posts this week--and you know where to find them:
1) Vancouver's latest embarrassments vs. Blues & Kings (Mon, Mar 10)
2) Devils-Leafs Saturday & Eastern roundup (Sun, Mar 9)
3) Bruins-Caps Saturday & Eastern preview (Sat, Mar 8)
4) It's about time! Thoughts on my "favourite" NFLer (Thurs, Mar 6)
5) Vancouver-Colorado: Another "L"... meaning more fun times (Tues, Mar 4)
Anyway, posts this week--and you know where to find them:
1) Vancouver's latest embarrassments vs. Blues & Kings (Mon, Mar 10)
2) Devils-Leafs Saturday & Eastern roundup (Sun, Mar 9)
3) Bruins-Caps Saturday & Eastern preview (Sat, Mar 8)
4) It's about time! Thoughts on my "favourite" NFLer (Thurs, Mar 6)
5) Vancouver-Colorado: Another "L"... meaning more fun times (Tues, Mar 4)
Sunday, March 2, 2008
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
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
Saturday, March 1, 2008
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.
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.
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!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, February 18, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
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!
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!
Saturday, February 9, 2008
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_
(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_
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
