There's really only two interesting parts of the NHL's All-Star weekend: the draft, and seeing whether or not Chara can break his own fastest shot record. Last night was the draft, with Ottawa captain Daniel Alfredsson and former Senator Zdeno Chara picking teams.
Not surprisingly, all the Slovaks and Bruins wound up on Chara's team. All the Swedes and Senators found their way to Alfredsson's team. Carey Price will also be on Team Chara. So will Dennis Wideman. No Canucks wound up with Chara.
But Phil Kessel did. I'm so glad Kessel is not on the Bruins. He puts up impressive numbers (except against the B's), but he's such an awkward creep. Chara's assistant captain for the draft was Toronto's Joffrey Lupul, so the Maple Leaf connection saved PK81 from more shame.
So Tim Thomas, Tyler Seguin, and Zdeno Chara will be on the same team. I'm going to predict that Thomas will allow 4 or 5 goals (no defense in the All-Star Game), Chara will win Fastest Shot, and Seguin will get a hat-trick.
Rumors are flying around Boston that the Red Sox are pursuing Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt. They've even been offered contracts, according to these rumors. These rumors aren't flimsy whispers, either. These are the loud, shouting, firm rumors. The kind that originate from the Red Sox' Front Office through their network of leaks and anonymous sources.
Either pitcher would help solidify the Sox rotation. The Sox cannibalized their bullpen in order to fill the gaps in that rotation, and there's no guarantee that a guy like Bard will be able to cut it as a starter. The Sox could use something a bit more concrete.
Jackson won 12 games with a respectable 3.79 ERA last season, split between the White Sox and Cardinals. He's far from an Ace, but he's a guy who can throw a decent 200 innings at the bottom of your rotation.
Oswalt isn't as appealing, but he might be cheaper to get. I doubt he'll recapture much of his 2010 form, when he was 6th in NL Cy Young voting. But the 33 year old still has something to offer.
So either guy improves the rotation, provides some depth, some insurance, some solidity.
But the Sox need to sign one of them for different reasons, for off-field reasons. I got an e-mail from RedSox.com last night, telling me that a majority of tickets go on sale tomorrow.
The Sox need something to keep the fans happy, to give them hope in 2012.
This off-season started with rage and frustration and an overwhelming desire for change. And apart from getting a new manager, losing a GM, and losing a closer, the Sox haven't changed much. No big ticket free agents. No blockbuster trades. No stud prospects coming from AAA. What is there for Sox fans to be excited about? What is there to drive them to spend money on tickets?
The Sox also have to compete with the Patriots, who are going to their 5th Super Bowl in 11 years. The Bruins just won the Cup and will likely see their season extend deep into the warm months. People in Boston only have so much money to spend on sports. And those dollars are shifting away from the Red Sox.
The Sox haven't made the playoffs since 2009. Haven't won a playoff series (or even a playoff game) since '08. Their TV ratings are going down. They still have that sellout streak, officially, but we've all seen more than a handful of empty seats at a few games.
The Sox need to make some sort of noise. They need to make it at least appear as though they want to win a World Series. This weekend is perfect to do so. The Pats have a week off. The Bruins are in an All-Star break. Time to fill the sports sections of the Globe and Herald with rumors and contract offers.
That's why the Jackson and Oswalt rumors have been so widespread, so firm, and so specific. Even if Jackson and Oswalt don't sign, the Sox have made it very public that they're trying.
Sox fans need something to look forward to in 2012. They want hope, and the Red Sox need to start selling them that hope.
There are times when the Bruins seem to lose patience with the Julien system. That's when they try making passes through opponents, instead of making more conservative decisions. I think last night we saw some impatience by a few Bruins, who tried making something out of nothing, and wound up giving golden opportunities to the Caps, who took full advantage of them.
Washington's third goal came when Boychuk attempted a D-to-D pass, even though he had no space, neither did Chara, and Mathieu Perrault was hot on his heels. Perrault easily intercepted the pass and scored.
Washington's fourth goal, the game-winner, came after McQuaid telegraphed a D-to-D pass in the offensive zone. The ensuing Capitals' possession eventually resulted in a goal. Had McQuaid made a better decision, then the scoring opportunities would have never happened.
The Bruins' formula for success is a combination of intense effort and intelligent decisions. Last night, the effort was there, but the intelligence wasn't.
And no, I don't think Thomas not going to the White House had anything to do with this loss. Although, since he's going up to Canada's capital for the All-Star Game, I wonder if he'd refuse to meet Canada's Prime Minister, if invited.
Bruins don't play a meaningful game until next Tuesday, when they host the Senators.
With the Patriots winning and Paterno dying, and of course the even bigger story about Tim Thomas not going to the White House, we didn't notice a BS suspension. Andrew Ference got suspended 3 games for his hit on Ryan McDonagh. Here's Brendan Shanahan's explanation:
Well, in my opinion, McDonagh did contribute to this hit by getting in Andrew Ference's way. Shanahan describes this as a textbook example of boarding, but to me, the textbook boarding has been when someone lines a vulnerable opponent up, then strikes when the opponent CANNOT defend himself. Not when an opponent obstructs your path to the puck, then places his legs in such an awkward wide stance that he has decided not to defend himself.
Ference, a relatively clean player, now has a black mark on his record. He got suspended the same number of games as Ovechkin did for this hit:
So Ovechkin launches himself, hits an opponent in the head, and has a history of suspensions and fines. Ference boards McDonagh, doesn't hit him in the head, and has no history of dirty play. And they're suspended the same number of games?
Shanahan admits that Ference shows no malicious intent in the hit. It was perhaps reckless. In which case, a fine or one game suspension is sufficient, I think. Then if Ference develops a habit of reckless hits, the suspensions can increase.
Ference is a 12 year veteran with a clean record and he gets suspended 3 games because McDonagh braced himself awkwardly and tried to block Ference from the puck. Seems a bit harsh.
Most of the Bruins went to the White House yesterday, to be honored by President Barack Obama for winning the Stanley Cup. And by most, I mean all of them except Tim Thomas. Even Kaberle was there.
Peter Chiarelli says that Thomas informed him he wouldn't attend the event months ago, citing political differences with Obama. Thomas is a conservative, and seems like a Tea Party conservative.
I'm sorry folks, but that's his right to not go. I personally would have gone, even though I'm a conservative too. I don't like Obama, but I don't hate him. And going to the White House and meeting the President would be a cool thing to do.
Then again, if I hated Obama and the Federal government, why would I want to go through the trouble of going through White House security, just to stand behind him as he made a speech and had a photo op? That doesn't sound like a fun afternoon if you really hate the guy.
I'm getting pissed off at people criticizing him over this.
"He put himself above the team."
"He disrespected the office of the Presidency."
I don't think he put himself or his politics above the team. It's not like Thomas refused to play a game because Obama was in attendance. He didn't go to a photo op in the White House. How does that hurt the team? I don't think his teammates are going to be pissed at him. I can't imagine Shawn Thornton staring angrily at him across the locker room, saying "We needed you yesterday, Timmy. Why weren't you there for us?"
Did he disrespect the Presidency? I guess he did. He certainly didn't show an overwhelming respect for the office. Then again, it doesn't seem like he has much love for any Federal office. And can you blame him? Are we happy with our government's performance this past decade?
Here's the statement he made about not attending the event:
"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.
"Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.
"This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"
You might disagree with his ideological beliefs. You might think that despite his feelings, he should have gone and been in the background of pictures of the President. But to lose respect for him because he exercised his right to free speech? That seems hyper-judgmental, and un-American.
Some people criticize athletes for not expressing their beliefs. Some criticize them for expressing them too much. Tim Tebow, for instance, was praised by millions for vocalizing his faith. He was also criticized by millions for doing so. But ultimately it's his right to say what he wants, how he wants to. It's a fundamentally important part of this country that we're free to express our beliefs.
Of course, that also means that people are free to express their dislike for what Thomas did. And I'm free to call them childish for doing so.
And if this becomes a distraction for the team, then they must not have been very focused to begin with. Knowing this team, they'll probably rally around Thomas and his right to express his political beliefs. The media has already tried turning this into a big deal, and that tends to galvanize teams, uniting them against a common outsider (the media), not dividing them.
I for one did not lose respect for Thomas yesterday. Because I don't care about his political beliefs, or how he expresses them. I don't know Tim Thomas personally, and don't care to. I like him because he's a good goalie. I respect him because as a good goalie. As for his politics, so long as he stops the puck, I don't give a fuck.
And to those who are criticizing his credentials as a teammate, all I can say is that videos speak louder than words. Here's him sticking up for Aaron Ward in 2009.
I'm pretty sure Thomas would have stuck up for Ward even if Ward had voted for Obama (of course Ward is Canadian so he probably didn't).
Tim Thomas didn't want to meet the President. Just because Obama is the President doesn't mean that people should accept every invitation he extends. Thomas doesn't like the Federal government in general, so why should he spend a day with the head of the government if he doesn't want to? This has become a much bigger deal than it really is. I think Obama has moved on and has other things to worry about. I think the Bruins are focused on their game in Washington tonight. The only people harping on this are the media looking to rake some muck, and judgmentalists who like saying what other people should and shouldn't do.
Joe Paterno lost his battle with lung cancer yesterday. I don't mind the outpouring of grief on the Penn State campus. I fully understand the praise he's getting for all the good he's done throughout his lifetime. After all, when someone passes, it's human nature to remember them fondly, and focus on their positive aspects.
But there's a line between grief and blind fanaticism. There's a line between emphasizing his positives, and denying that he had any negatives. And some have crossed that line. Todd Blackledge essentially spray-painted it blue and white. Here's what he had to say:
"I know the cancer took its toll. The treatment took its toll and had a part to play in it. His age and his frailty had a part to play in it. But I think as much as anything else, Joe Paterno died of a broken heart today. And I think there were a lot of people that had a part to play in that. Whether it be the Board of Trustees and the way they handled his situation. Even the media, and the way they covered everything over the last several months. I just think that was as much a part of him dying today as anything else. And that hurts my heart."
At least he admits that the 85 year old guy died partially due to cancer.
This is one word short of accusing the Penn State trustees and ESPN of being accessories to murder. These blind supporters of his can't even admit that his death was a normal human death.
Jordan Norwood called him "one of the most influential men in our nations history [sic]."
Wasn't it Martin Luther King Day last week? And don't we celebrate Washington and Lincoln's birthdays soon? I know these guys didn't win any national titles in the 80's, but maybe Paterno's impact on national history is small, even trivial.
Mike Ditka called him a "true hero," which was echoed by a Penn State student on ESPN who said quite simply "He's a hero."
Don't we have men and women in our armed services fighting and dying for us? Don't we have firefighters and cops? Don't we have people who call the cops when they hear about old men taking showers with young boys?
Paterno was not a hero. Even without the recent scandal, he was never a hero. He might have been a great leader and teacher, but not a hero. Heroes risk something. Heroes sacrifice.
He could have been a hero to some kids, but he decided that informing his AD was sufficient heroism for one day.
"It's kind of tragic that they [Penn State] weren't able to do something nice for him before he passed. It's kind of a shame..." That's what a fan on SportsCenter said.
It's kind of tragic that Paterno wasn't able to do something nice for some kids before their lives were ruined. It's a shame that even in death, he is still worshiped as a demigod, and not a man. His contributions deserve praise, and the people he's affected should mourn him. One mistake cannot define a man. It's okay to grieve him and emphasize the positive. But to address and summarily dismiss the negative is asinine, ignorant, and annoying.
I wouldn't mind if guys like Blackledge ignored the scandal in their time of grief. But to attribute his death to the Board of Trustees and the media is simply moronic.
I'm very happy that the NHLPA rejected the proposed realignment that would have reduced the number of times the Bruins play teams like the Devils, Rangers, and Flyers. Not only are these good Eastern seaboard rivalries for fans, but the hockey is simply fantastic to watch.
Starting with the Rangers game, it was a good, close-checking, hard fighting playoff style game. For the Rangers, who are looking to prove something to themselves as well as the League, it was a playoff game.
The Bruins needed to get more from their Power Play unit. Not necessarily scoring. They only got 2 shots on goal in 4 PP chances. That's not good enough. At the very least, you have to generate some opportunities, make the goalie work to kill the penalty.
Another thing the B's did was take too many shots that were clearly going to get blocked. It's one thing to shoot through traffic and have a defenseman block the shot down low. But when forwards are pressuring the point as much as the Rangers' were, it's inevitable that the shot won't get to the goalie. So don't take the shot.
One positive from the Rangers' game was how productive the defensemen were. Andrew Ference has become a sniper (and a thug, according to the NHL. More on that later).
The Flyers game saw more special teams struggles. The Bruins allowed 3 PP goals. There were some weird bounces that favored the Flyers. But the B's also allowed Hartnell to repeatedly set himself up in the middle slot. A hat-trick resulted.
The officiating was interesting. It seemed like the Flyers would hit a Bruin up high, there'd be some drama, an odd number of penalties issued, and the Bruins would wind up being shorthanded. Apparently, checks aimed at the head aren't as severe as standing up for a teammate.
That's the game, though. It can't be easy for a ref to keep a lid on these kinds of games.
I know the NHL wants to make sure that teams like the Bruins, Rangers, and Flyers visit every struggling market in the NHL, from Columbus to Phoenix to Nashville to Miami. The NHL wants these markets to have some games they can promote and sell out. But it's hockey welfare, redistributing wealth to markets that don't care much about the game.
It's not worth losing multiple games between the Bruins and Flyers, between the Bruins and Rangers. If anything, the Bruins should be playing these teams more than 4 times a year. Because these were some very exciting games, with good atmospheres generated by passionate fanbases.
How often do you see a natural hat-trick and a Gordie Howe hat-trick in the same game AND have it occur in front of fans who know what those terms mean?
The Bruins are in Washington Tuesday. They'll also meet the President. I'd like to hear a conversation between Marchand and Obama. "You got big ears, eh?"
The defense won this game. The defense and Billy Cundiff. It certainly wasn't the offense that won this game for the Pats. While I don't think Brady "sucked pretty badly," he wasn't good. The Patriots lost the turnover battle, Flacco in many ways had a better game than Brady, the Ravens accumulated more yards, and held the ball longer. But the Pats defense made some big plays in big moments and that's why the Patriots are going to the Super Bowl.
The defense did allow a pair of token touchdown drives, struggling to contain Rice and giving up chunks of yardage in the air.
But when Woodhead fumbled a kickoff return on the 28, the defense held Baltimore to a field goal (which gave the Ravens a 4 point lead instead of an 8 point lead). Spikes' interception might have been a big play if Brady didn't throw a pick a few seconds later.
In the 4th, the Ravens had a 3rd and 3 on the Patriots' 30 (48 yard field goal range). Wilfork stuffed Ray Rice for a 3 yard loss, and Baltimore was forced to go for it on 4th and 6 instead of kicking a field goal. The Pats did not allow the Ravens to convert that 4th down thanks to good coverage and pressure from the aforementioned Wilfork.
The offense had a chance run out the clock late but went 3 and out. The defense did allow a big 29 yard Anquan Boldin reception, which put the Ravens in field goal range. Then Sterling Moore saved the game by breaking up a pass in the end zone, then deflected the next pass. So at the very least, the defense preserved a tie.
Billy Cundiff did the rest.
The Patriots' offense wasn't bad all game. They just couldn't come up with many big plays. They struggled in the Red Zone, the Ravens got timely pressure on Brady, then there were the turnovers. Brady threw 2 picks, he also had one called back because of an illegal contact penalty, and he threw another one after an encroachment flag. He was not that sharp. He also missed a wide open Gronkowski and what would have been a touchdown in the 1st quarter. He missed a number of passes, and frequently threw into double coverage.
The Pats' best player had his worst game of the season, but because of Wilfork, Spikes, Moore, and Ellis, the Pats still won. And Brady will get a chance to redeem himself against the Giants.
