Sad the last post here was about Paris Hilton, right? But it's not our fault there's not much to rant about in the off season, aside from the lack of hockey.
So what suddenly woke me up? I have some serious beef with a certin center who seems to think he's worth more than both Patrik Elias and Marty Brodeur, who happens to be ex- devil $cott gome$. Ok, the guy's ego is too big for his own good. Big whoop, happens all the time. That's true. But, I don't care who you are, you don't say you'd never sign with a team, then go and sign with them shortly after, especially when that team is your old team's biggest rival. Don't say he did what's best for his family. He made $5 mil. this season, and could have gotten that money on a team besides the Rangers or Flyers, like a team out west. The Ducks, Sharks, Canucks, even the Kings were looking into him, and he had to go sign with the Rangers.
As if going back on his word once wasn't enough, he did it three times: once, claiming he would never sign with the Rangers, again saying he wouldn't sign in the division, and most likely not even in the confrence, then a third time saying he wanted to play in the west, closer to home.
But who's complaining? I'd rather take Zubrus for 3.4 than gomez at 7.35.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Miss Hilton
She must be worth a trillion bucks. Which is exactly why Paris(e) is sitting in alone in a jail cell, sans the three most important things in her life: her Blackberry, best friend Nicole Richie, and baby Tinkerbell.
How is this hockey-related? I almost made Paris into Parise (since I accidentally put the 'e' after Paris when I typed it). And, well, this is important.
The only reason Ms Hilton is doing time is because she's rich. The judge who sentenced her to 45 days (which is back to that after being lowered to 23. She now has 40 days left) said himself in several interviews that he was making a point that celebrities can't get away with everything. That is what really got to me. Here you have Paris, who was pulled over three times and was caught both drunk and with a suspended license, and Lindsay Lohan going out and getting drunk, smashing cars, nearly killing people and driving drunk all the time. It wouldn't be nearly as bad (not that it would be good either) if she wasn't only 20. Not only have pictures of her doing drugs and getting drunk been in magazines and newspapers for over three years, but she's only 20. Drugs are illegal no matter how old you are, and drinking isn't legal if you're under 21 (yeah, no duh). So why aren't they cracking down on her, or the people who are serving her alcohol? Lindsay is just as famous as Paris. They need to do something about her and all those other underaged girls before they worry about Paris. They could have done much worse things to her, like having gurads tail her and not let her shop for a month. It may sound stupid, but come on. It's Paris Hilton. There's no worse punishment for a girl like her than not letting her shop. Even two months of house arrest would be worse for her- if she wasn't allowed access to the internet, phones or any other form of communication.
Again, the judge was way out of line with this sentence. They should worry a little more about those 18 year olds who are out getting drunk, crashing cars, and hurting people and a little less about Paris who didn't harm anyone at all.
How is this hockey-related? I almost made Paris into Parise (since I accidentally put the 'e' after Paris when I typed it). And, well, this is important.
The only reason Ms Hilton is doing time is because she's rich. The judge who sentenced her to 45 days (which is back to that after being lowered to 23. She now has 40 days left) said himself in several interviews that he was making a point that celebrities can't get away with everything. That is what really got to me. Here you have Paris, who was pulled over three times and was caught both drunk and with a suspended license, and Lindsay Lohan going out and getting drunk, smashing cars, nearly killing people and driving drunk all the time. It wouldn't be nearly as bad (not that it would be good either) if she wasn't only 20. Not only have pictures of her doing drugs and getting drunk been in magazines and newspapers for over three years, but she's only 20. Drugs are illegal no matter how old you are, and drinking isn't legal if you're under 21 (yeah, no duh). So why aren't they cracking down on her, or the people who are serving her alcohol? Lindsay is just as famous as Paris. They need to do something about her and all those other underaged girls before they worry about Paris. They could have done much worse things to her, like having gurads tail her and not let her shop for a month. It may sound stupid, but come on. It's Paris Hilton. There's no worse punishment for a girl like her than not letting her shop. Even two months of house arrest would be worse for her- if she wasn't allowed access to the internet, phones or any other form of communication.
Again, the judge was way out of line with this sentence. They should worry a little more about those 18 year olds who are out getting drunk, crashing cars, and hurting people and a little less about Paris who didn't harm anyone at all.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Traitormayer?
I can't believe what some Devils fans are saying about Scott Neidemayer. Calling him a traitor, saying he didn't deserve to win the Cup- everything imaginable. He did leave the Devils just to play with his brother, but that was a better reason than leaving for the number one reason UFA's leave: greed. More often than not, when a player signs with a team while he's a UFA, it's simply because if the pay. He could have waited until his brother was able to sign with the Devils, but he didn't want to. Or maybe he wanted to see what it was like to play on another team. What ever his reasons were, it's time to move on. Neidermayer is a Duck now. We have other players to fill the void. Yes, none of our defense men come even close to him, but we're still a good team. What I really don't get is why some people are blaming this all on his brother, Rob. Ok, so if it wasn't for Rob, there's a good chance he'd still be a Devil, but it's not guaranteed. People have to stop thinking about what could have happened and stop living in the past.
Another thing I don't quite understand? Why are people who didn't want Rob to have anything to do with the Devils wishing we had traded Gomez for him? Because there's a chance we could have obtained Scott, eventually? Because Gomez is ready to get as far away from New Jersey as possible? Like I said, people have to stop living in the past, and thinking about what might have been, and just think about what can be done to improve the team we have. Lose the hate for Neidermayer. He's a good player, who could have left just for greed. He did it for family, and, in my opinion, that's not a bad reason to do so. Is Scott Gomez going to go from 'Gomer' to 'Traitor'? Or will there be no hate for him, because he's leaving for the cash, instead of his family like Neidermayer, or to play where he wants to, like Brian Rafalski did, and will likely do again? I think leaving for a stupid reason like money makes you more of a traitor than leaving so you can be happier where you play.
Another thing I don't quite understand? Why are people who didn't want Rob to have anything to do with the Devils wishing we had traded Gomez for him? Because there's a chance we could have obtained Scott, eventually? Because Gomez is ready to get as far away from New Jersey as possible? Like I said, people have to stop living in the past, and thinking about what might have been, and just think about what can be done to improve the team we have. Lose the hate for Neidermayer. He's a good player, who could have left just for greed. He did it for family, and, in my opinion, that's not a bad reason to do so. Is Scott Gomez going to go from 'Gomer' to 'Traitor'? Or will there be no hate for him, because he's leaving for the cash, instead of his family like Neidermayer, or to play where he wants to, like Brian Rafalski did, and will likely do again? I think leaving for a stupid reason like money makes you more of a traitor than leaving so you can be happier where you play.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Say Whaa?
A general managers meeting, that I was not invited to, took place on Sunday, to "attempt to eliminate such hits to players in defenseless positions." That was referring to Chis Pronger's hit on Dean McAmmond in game 3 of the finals (which, due to a 3-2 win last night, the Ducks are leading 3-1), that took him out, and made him unable to play in game 4. The Ducks GM was in favor of a rule being made to prevent hits like that (I think), but was afraid that they would take the hitting out of hockey. The GM of the Sabres, however, said hits like Chris Neil's on Chris Drury (so many Chris's) back in February. The Devils' GM was silent (at least, the Record had no quotes from him.)
Ok, so some GMs want to get rid of hitting all together (which Gary Bettman will probably go for), and Chris Neil needs to get penalized more for his play. Big deal. Suck it up, right? Kind of. That did bother me, but the worst part had to be some of the other topics discussed.
Increasing the size of the net, for more goal scoring. Seriously, the nets are big enough. Maybe I'm just so used to seeing the Devils play, but I'd rather see a low-scoring game with a lot of hits, saves, and blocks than a game where nearly every freaking puck goes in. Would I mind if the size of the net depended on the size of a goalie (as in, giving bigger goalie's less of an advantage)? No, not at all. If you're 6' 6" and 250 pounds, then, yeah, make the net bigger, so there's not as much of an advantage over the opposing goalie. But just increasing the size overall is just plain stupid.
Making minor penalties in regular season OT one minute instead of two. They want that so the teams won't be "extensively punished." Well, why not do the smart thing and just increase OT to 10 minutes or something? I'd rather see that, and less shootouts, although we all know Bettman loves them more than he loves Sidney Crosby. Extend it an extra five minutes, and you'll eliminate quite a few shootouts, and you won't have to make penalties shorter. This way, we all win.
Going four on four in playoff OT. Why? I happen to like games that end up going 7 periods. Just get rid of back to back games, and start 'em about a half hour earlier, and there won't be too much of a problem. OT is supposed to be so exciting and nerve-racking that it gives you ulcers. Getting rid of that extra skater will just make it shorter, and less fun. Although, my heart wouldn't really mind it..Moving on, the Canucks' GM agreed with me. I bet Lou would too.
I should totally take Bettman's place as the commissioner. Or become a GM. Either one works for me.
Ok, so some GMs want to get rid of hitting all together (which Gary Bettman will probably go for), and Chris Neil needs to get penalized more for his play. Big deal. Suck it up, right? Kind of. That did bother me, but the worst part had to be some of the other topics discussed.
Increasing the size of the net, for more goal scoring. Seriously, the nets are big enough. Maybe I'm just so used to seeing the Devils play, but I'd rather see a low-scoring game with a lot of hits, saves, and blocks than a game where nearly every freaking puck goes in. Would I mind if the size of the net depended on the size of a goalie (as in, giving bigger goalie's less of an advantage)? No, not at all. If you're 6' 6" and 250 pounds, then, yeah, make the net bigger, so there's not as much of an advantage over the opposing goalie. But just increasing the size overall is just plain stupid.
Making minor penalties in regular season OT one minute instead of two. They want that so the teams won't be "extensively punished." Well, why not do the smart thing and just increase OT to 10 minutes or something? I'd rather see that, and less shootouts, although we all know Bettman loves them more than he loves Sidney Crosby. Extend it an extra five minutes, and you'll eliminate quite a few shootouts, and you won't have to make penalties shorter. This way, we all win.
Going four on four in playoff OT. Why? I happen to like games that end up going 7 periods. Just get rid of back to back games, and start 'em about a half hour earlier, and there won't be too much of a problem. OT is supposed to be so exciting and nerve-racking that it gives you ulcers. Getting rid of that extra skater will just make it shorter, and less fun. Although, my heart wouldn't really mind it..Moving on, the Canucks' GM agreed with me. I bet Lou would too.
I should totally take Bettman's place as the commissioner. Or become a GM. Either one works for me.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Pronger Suspended
How can I rant about Chris Pronger being suspended for taking Dean McAmmond out with an elbow during game three? No, I don't think it should be more than one game. I don't think he should have even gotten suspended. As with the entire out come of the game, it can be blamed on the refs. How none of them saw that is beyond me. Had a penalty been issued during the game, he might not have even gotten suspended.
Why, exactly, am I complaining about the refs again? My blogging buddy pointed out in a MySpace bulletin that Senator Chris Neil was knocking Ducks over left and right, elbowing Andy McDonald, and taking out Chris Kunitz, who just returned from injury, in the beginning of the game. A penalty wasn't issued to Neil either, which doesn't make any sense at all. Neil caused more dammage, in my opinion, than Pronger did, and Pronger is the one who gets suspended. I don't understant anything this league does at all, anymore.
Another point? After reviewing the "elbow" (different video) several times, it seems like it was not as intentional as some people, namely Sens fans, think it was. There was movement on Pronger's part, however, it was not as much as people would like to think. His arm did move, but, not only is Pronger 7 inches taller than McAmmond, but McAmmond did have his head down a bit, and, much like the Janssen hit on Kaberle, could have been paying more attention than he was. Also, in Pronger's defense, due to his height, his arm could have naturally been there, although he did appear to jerk it as McAmmond approached.
All I'm saying, is that when you're skating quickly, and somone's elbow is right in your face, regardless of weather or not they jerk it towards you or not, you're going to get hurt. If the refs had been paying attention, as when the hit that caused the Janssen suspention occurred, punishment would have been given during the game, and the suspention might not have been issued, or, in Janssen's case, been less severe. The refs during the playoffs have been terrible. Next post season, they should spend a little more time picking the officials.
Why, exactly, am I complaining about the refs again? My blogging buddy pointed out in a MySpace bulletin that Senator Chris Neil was knocking Ducks over left and right, elbowing Andy McDonald, and taking out Chris Kunitz, who just returned from injury, in the beginning of the game. A penalty wasn't issued to Neil either, which doesn't make any sense at all. Neil caused more dammage, in my opinion, than Pronger did, and Pronger is the one who gets suspended. I don't understant anything this league does at all, anymore.
Another point? After reviewing the "elbow" (different video) several times, it seems like it was not as intentional as some people, namely Sens fans, think it was. There was movement on Pronger's part, however, it was not as much as people would like to think. His arm did move, but, not only is Pronger 7 inches taller than McAmmond, but McAmmond did have his head down a bit, and, much like the Janssen hit on Kaberle, could have been paying more attention than he was. Also, in Pronger's defense, due to his height, his arm could have naturally been there, although he did appear to jerk it as McAmmond approached.
All I'm saying, is that when you're skating quickly, and somone's elbow is right in your face, regardless of weather or not they jerk it towards you or not, you're going to get hurt. If the refs had been paying attention, as when the hit that caused the Janssen suspention occurred, punishment would have been given during the game, and the suspention might not have been issued, or, in Janssen's case, been less severe. The refs during the playoffs have been terrible. Next post season, they should spend a little more time picking the officials.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
My turn.
If you trip someone, accidentally or intentionally, you and your team are penalized. Shouldn't you be penalized for kicking the puck into the net, even if it was on purpose? In soccer, that would be fine. In hockey, that would be a problem.
The Senators are leading the Ducks 4-3 after two periods, due to a goal where the puck was kicked in by Daniel Alfredson. Add that with a horrible call against ex- Devil Scott Neidermayer, and you've got yourself a poor excuse for ref-ing.
It's not only this game where the refs and their calls have been questionable. In every series in every round there have been many, many calls that were just plain stupid.
Back to the kick. Very similar plays occurred in both the Senators/Panguins and Rangers/Sabres series, and in both cases the goal did not count. Why would they call no goal against the clear favorite of all NHL officials, Sidney Crosby, but not a player on the team who elminated The Kid and his team? It makes no sense.
Going to the bad calls, here's something you wouldn't call a bad call, but it could be questionable. Sen Dean McAmmon (not sure if that's spelled correctly) just smashed into Duck Chris Pronger's elbow, and, of couse, the Senators' coach is crying about there not being a penalty. Many would agree that Pronger should have been called for elbowing, but McAmmon should have kept his head up, and not been admiring his pretty pass, much like Kebarle when Janssen was suspended for his hit on him.
Here's another example. Ryan Getzlaf was attacked by a Senator, who continuted to hit him, even when he was down on the ice with no helmet, and Getzlaf was the one who got penalized. Not one Senator ended up in the box, but they were the ones going after the Ducks.
Maybe it's the anger at the Senators for eliminating the Devils in the last round that's causing me to feel they're being favored, or maybe they really are. Either way, these refs are horrible, and need practice when it comes to calling penalties.
The Senators are leading the Ducks 4-3 after two periods, due to a goal where the puck was kicked in by Daniel Alfredson. Add that with a horrible call against ex- Devil Scott Neidermayer, and you've got yourself a poor excuse for ref-ing.
It's not only this game where the refs and their calls have been questionable. In every series in every round there have been many, many calls that were just plain stupid.
Back to the kick. Very similar plays occurred in both the Senators/Panguins and Rangers/Sabres series, and in both cases the goal did not count. Why would they call no goal against the clear favorite of all NHL officials, Sidney Crosby, but not a player on the team who elminated The Kid and his team? It makes no sense.
Going to the bad calls, here's something you wouldn't call a bad call, but it could be questionable. Sen Dean McAmmon (not sure if that's spelled correctly) just smashed into Duck Chris Pronger's elbow, and, of couse, the Senators' coach is crying about there not being a penalty. Many would agree that Pronger should have been called for elbowing, but McAmmon should have kept his head up, and not been admiring his pretty pass, much like Kebarle when Janssen was suspended for his hit on him.
Here's another example. Ryan Getzlaf was attacked by a Senator, who continuted to hit him, even when he was down on the ice with no helmet, and Getzlaf was the one who got penalized. Not one Senator ended up in the box, but they were the ones going after the Ducks.
Maybe it's the anger at the Senators for eliminating the Devils in the last round that's causing me to feel they're being favored, or maybe they really are. Either way, these refs are horrible, and need practice when it comes to calling penalties.
No Way!
I'm just about ready to make buttons that say "Say No Way To Souray." So many people want us to sign him, and I'm not quite sure why. Let's review his stats from this season, shall we?
Goals: 26
Assists: 38
+/-: -28
GWG: 6
PPG: 19
SGH: 1
PIMs: 135
Now, 64 points from a defenseman is nothing to complain about, but the -28 and 135 PIMs are what stumps me. How could anyone want a Dman who had so many PIMs and such a low +/-? The PIMs wouldn't really be so much of a problem if more than 3 of them were majors. No, that was not a typo. The guy had 60 minor penalties. What really gets me is a lot of people who want this guy think Colin White takes too many penalties. Huh? White had 32 minors. It's still a lot, but I'll take that over 60 any day. And the -28. Only two players had a worse +/- this season. Regardless of how good he is on the PP and PK, he's not what we need. Why would we, or really any other team, want a guy who puts the team short handed so many times and isn't, how can I say this nicely, very good at full strength? For around $3 million, it's worth a shot. For the $4.5+ million he'll be asking for, the only thing it'll be good for is a laugh.
Not sure if this really qualifies as a rant, but hey.
Goals: 26
Assists: 38
+/-: -28
GWG: 6
PPG: 19
SGH: 1
PIMs: 135
Now, 64 points from a defenseman is nothing to complain about, but the -28 and 135 PIMs are what stumps me. How could anyone want a Dman who had so many PIMs and such a low +/-? The PIMs wouldn't really be so much of a problem if more than 3 of them were majors. No, that was not a typo. The guy had 60 minor penalties. What really gets me is a lot of people who want this guy think Colin White takes too many penalties. Huh? White had 32 minors. It's still a lot, but I'll take that over 60 any day. And the -28. Only two players had a worse +/- this season. Regardless of how good he is on the PP and PK, he's not what we need. Why would we, or really any other team, want a guy who puts the team short handed so many times and isn't, how can I say this nicely, very good at full strength? For around $3 million, it's worth a shot. For the $4.5+ million he'll be asking for, the only thing it'll be good for is a laugh.
Not sure if this really qualifies as a rant, but hey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)