The Wings Were an Appetizer, the Canadiens Are the Main Course

It's finally Thursday and it's finally time: The Bruins against the Canadiens. The B's against Les Habitants. Black and gold against the bleu blanc rouge.

This is my favorite sports rivalry. I'm more emotionally invested in this rivalry than any other in Boston sports (at least since the 2004 ALCS when the Red Sox finally overcame the Yankees). I hate the Canadiens. I hate everything their team stands for (and falls down for). And I hate their fans. This is true, mean, irrational hatred.

With all due respect to the Red Wings, the only way they were going to beat the Bruins was if the Bruins beat themselves. And did so on multiple levels. Even when Tuukka Rask let in a soft goal and the B's played like crap, Detroit barely took Game 1. The Bruins-Red Wings series was by far the least exciting of the 8 first round series in the NHL.

Montreal is different. While I can't say I respect them, I do respect the threat they pose. They're fast and they know how to use that speed. They have a goalie capable of greatness. They have very talented players like PK Subban, Max Pacioretty (39 goals this year), and Bruins killer Thomas Vanek.

In playoff hockey the Bruins usually do a good job of shutting down, or at least minimizing, an opponent's best forwards. Put Zdeno Chara and the Bergeron line on the ice against an opposing top line and keep them from beating you. However, the Canadiens don't rely on a top line for their offense. They rely on guys like PK Subban. Subban and fellow defenseman Andrei Markov were 2nd and 4th on the Canadiens in points this year. That's one reason the Habs are such a matchup problem for the B's. To be fair, PK Subban is a matchup problem for the entire NHL.

Another reason is that the Canadiens can get under the Bruins' skins. When the Bruins feel like the officials aren't calling the game they way they ought to, the Bruins have one reaction: hit somebody. And not when the time is right, NOW. The B's have a tendency to lose their composure and give gift penalties to opponents with post-whistle punches, interference, slashes, et cetera. That can only hurt them in this series.

Montreal isn't as reliant on their power play as they've been in years past, but it only takes one or two goals to flip a close series around. And this will be a close series. Don't give them the extra chances.

The emotions of this series will sway back and forth. There will be tidal waves of frustration and rage, floods of good play and bad. The difference between winning and losing might be who plays composed even when they're mad, and who forces the other team into making a heated mistake.

Some things I'd like to see from the Bruins, apart from composure:

Brad Marchand either scoring or helping others score. It's been 11 games since his last playoff point. Tuukka Rask has more points (1 assist) in those 11 games than Marchand has. Marchand is a top 6 forward, he's paid like a top 6 forward, he needs to play like a top 6 forward.

Milan Lucic needs to be a freight train that stays on the tracks. Don't derail for the sake of sending a physical message. Don't remove yourself off the ice with unnecessary penalties. That's what Montreal wants.

Don't take Montreal's speed for granted. That cross-ice passing lane that seems open, their speed will close it like a bear trap. See what I did with that pun there?

Rask needs to be exceptional at critical moments. Not just good, exceptional. There will be breakaways, there will be power plays, Rask's job is to make timely saves. Giving up a goal when it's 1-1 in the 1st period is not the same as when it's 1-1 late in the 3rd.

Special teams need to remain an advantage. I don't expect the Bruins' power play to continue at the 38% clip it produced at in the Red Wings series. It does need to continue to produce goals, and to pressure Carey Price and the Habs for 2 minutes. No easy kills for Montreal. Wear them out. This series will be a battle of attrition.

The Bruins need more production 5-on-5. They only scored 6 even strength goals against Detroit in 5 games (14 total, 6 on power play, 6 even, 2 empty-netters).

This will be an exciting, emotional roller coaster of a series. Moments of unparalleled exultation along with periods of deep dread and despair. And all of it hangs in the balance with each game, each period, each shift, each pass.

My prediction on these extremely difficult series to predict: Bruins in 7.

NBA Amputates Donald Sterling Like a Diseased Limb

The Hand of the King NBA Commissioner Adam Silver banned LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling from the NBA for life. Not indefinitely, not for 5 years, for life.

The strong and decisive move won almost universal approval from fans and players. I'm glad the NBA didn't try to precisely measure their response. They brought a sledgehammer. Their justice was absolute.

To be more accurate with my metaphors, they amputated Sterling from the NBA like a gangrenous limb. They chopped him off with a hacksaw and then tossed him in a bucket.

Continuing with the amputation metaphor, I can't say I understand the $2.5 million fine. That's like cutting off an infected arm, and then breaking the fingers after it's been removed.

Severing ties with Sterling was the right thing to do. It was justice. Fining him the $2.5 million seems more like attempted vengeance. It's punitive. He did something that made us angry, and we want to hurt him because of it. I'm not a supporter of that. Get rid of him, get him out of the NBA, force him to sell the team, and then be done with him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sympathizing with Sterling over the fine. He can afford it. The $2.5 million will go to charities, and that's a good thing too. And that sum of money means next to nothing to him (another reason why I don't get the fine, it doesn't inflict pain). If Sterling sells the team at its value ($575 million according to Forbes), the fine will be 0.4% of what he gets for the team.

Sterling bought the Clippers for $12.5 million in 1981. He's poised to make over 4,000% profit on his investment, not counting the profits he's made in those 33 years. Those massive figures put into perspective how trivial the $2.5 million fine was.

But at least it will go to charity.

Sterling's remarks were shocking, but nobody seemed surprised it was he who made them. Nobody came out and said "I just can't believe that was him. You think you know someone." There was no disbelief that it was Sterling who said such things. After all, he's been accused of racial discrimination multiple times before. And although never found guilty, he did settle out of court (for $2.765 million, which is close to what the NBA fined him) for property discrimination.

The NBA couldn't do anything about Sterling back then. Innocent until proven guilty.

I'm trying to imagine if Sterling had been found guilty in one of those court cases. Would the NBA have banned him then? Or would there have been some token chastising, a slap on the proverbial wrist.

Another thing I'm thinking about in all this is how rarely players and coaches, in all sports, seem to think about the owner of the teams they play for. How much did Blake Griffin or Doc Rivers care that Sterling discriminated against black and Hispanic people in his apartment buildings? How often does any player or coach think about the team's owner? They're all concerned with contracts and quality of the team and the climate.

Barely anyone cared. The NBA, the media, all of us, the fans, the coaches, the players. Housing discrimination has a major impact on urban communities, and it contributes to the cycle of poverty in cities. Sterling was never found guilty, but why would you settle if you were completely innocent?

There was plenty of smoke, but no apparent fire. It took an archivist/girlfriend to find the fire. Nobody else really cared.

And now we're all happy that justice was done and Donald Sterling will likely no longer be a part of the NBA. He'll still be a major property owner in LA. He owns 162 buildings. He'll still be a billionaire. If not for this story he would have been a two-time NAACP LA Chapter Lifetime Achievement winner for some reason. Now he'll be stuck with just one Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP.

Donald Sterling saying racist things was an instant #1 story. Donald Sterling actively discriminating against and hurting minorities was a mere tidbit. No players turned their jerseys inside out for the people who weren't allowed to move into nice neighborhoods. Coaches and players still worked for him. Fans supported his team. Life moved on. But when he was caught talking about Instagram photos, the world stopped and focused on him.

What does that say about us? An audio recording on TMZ pisses us off more than systematic property discrimination, impacting countless people in LA.

Bruins-Canadiens Schedule Released

Finally, the NHL has released the schedule for the Bruins-Canadiens series. The schedule came out Tuesday night. I don't know why they couldn't have released it during the day, or Monday. Whatever.

The series starts Thursday night in Boston with a 7:30 start time.

Game 2 will be a Saturday matinee, which is incredibly lame. A raucous Saturday night crowd would have been perfect. Instead the game begins at 12:30. That means last call at the Garden will be sometime before 2:30. How incredibly lame is that?

Games 3 and 4 will be up in Montreal on Tuesday and Thursday night of next week. Both games to start at 7.

If a Game 5 is necessary it will be on Saturday May 10th in Boston. No start time announced as of yet.

Game 6 would be Monday the 12th in Montreal at 7.

Game 7 would be back in Boston on Wednesday the 14th.

I'm glad it's starting on Thursday and we're not all waiting around getting Bru-balls until Saturday. However that 12:30 start on Saturday just flat out sucks. Why not 3 or 4? Just stupid.

People Need to Learn What the First Amendment Actually Says

In the wake of Donald Sterling's racist remarks, a number of people have alluded to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and have been asking how Sterling could be disciplined even though his freedom of speech is guaranteed by said Constitution.

Here's the First Amendment. The parts concerned with free speech are in bold and underlined...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

That's all the First Amendment does. It prohibits the government from making laws limiting your freedom of speech. The Constitution doesn't give you immunity from people reacting to your opinions. It certainly doesn't protect you from being fired or punished by an employer. You have freedom of speech, but your speech does not have freedom of consequences.

When an NBA coach criticizes officials, the NBA typically fines him. That's not a violation of the First Amendment. The NBA has every right to do that.

If you walked up to your boss and said "Sit on it and rotate," you could be punished for that.

If a waiter or waitress swears at a customer, they can be punished for it.

If a school teacher teaches their students that black people aren't as evolved as whites, they could and should be fired for that. They can't be arrested for it, but the school (whether it's public or private) has the right to dismiss the teacher.

And if the owner of an NBA team says racist things that are detrimental to the league, even if it's in the privacy of his own house, he can be banned and fined. The First Amendment guarantees he won't be arrested or prosecuted for what he said. It does not guarantee that his speech won't result in consequences.

So people, before you start citing Amendments, please learn what they mean. And be grateful that the First Amendment protects you from being arrested for incorrectly citing the First Amendment. It does not protect you from me calling you a bonehead.

Mark Cuban More Worried About Slippery Slopes Than Racist Owners

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban (whose name is frequently preceded by the description "outspoken") finally made his opinion on LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling (whose name shall henceforth be preceded by the description "racist" or "bigoted") public. And while Cuban found Sterling's thoughts "abhorrent," Cuban was also worried about going down a "slippery slope." He argued that "If we start trying to legislate morality, we've got much bigger problems."

And while I agree with that sentiment, this isn't a case of legislating morality. Donald Sterling doesn't just hold an unpopular opinion. It's not really an opinion at all.

People aren't advocating for the removal of Donald Sterling because of an opinion on abortion, or Obamacare, or because he denies climate change, or because he wants to ban assault weapons. People want Sterling out, not because of his beliefs and morals, but because of who he is and what he's decided to be.

Being a racist isn't a moral opinion. It's a decision to not view other human beings as human beings. That's not a moral issue to be judged or "legislated," to use Cuban's term. People don't want Sterling to go because of his opinions, they want him gone because of the decisions he has made to be a racist. He has chosen to be racist.

Mark Cuban was born to Jewish parents. His brother Brian is a lawyer who has made legal efforts to compel Facebook to ban Holocaust denying Facebook groups. What if an NBA owner were recorded saying that the Holocaust wasn't real and that Jews run the media? What if an NBA owner were recorded praising Adolf Hitler, and had a copy of Mein Kampf and other Nazi literature and paraphernalia gloriously displayed in his private study? Is viewing Jews as subhuman a moral opinion? Or is it a choice?

Antisemitism isn't a moral opinion to be disagreed with nor is any form of racial prejudice. The person makes the choice to be so utterly ignorant and to dehumanize other human beings.

I can argue with someone who has a differing opinion from mine. And maybe their opinion will change, maybe mine will change, maybe not. Can you argue with a racist? Can you sway what a racist has decided to think about black people or Jews? Will they be able to convince you that black men shouldn't date white women, and that there was no Holocaust? You wouldn't be arguing an opinion, you'd be arguing a decision.

My saying "Magic Johnson is the best LA Laker since Kareem Abdul-Jabbar" is an opinion. Saying "You shouldn't be seen in public with Magic Johnson because he's black," is NOT a moral opinion, it's a decision to see Magic Johnson as less than human.

We're all human beings. That's a fact, not an opinion. Disagreeing with that fact that we're all human is also not an opinion, it's a decision.

So, Mr. Cuban, Mr. Outspoken, you are wrong here. If Donald Sterling is removed it won't be because of his morals. It will be because of his decisions. Sterling made, makes, and will continue to make the decision to view black people as something not quite human. And that doesn't belong in the ownership ranks of the NBA or any sport.

How Everyone Can Help to Get Rid of Donald Sterling

In the wake of Donald Sterling's racist remarks, I've heard some people suggest that as a protest, the LA Clippers players should have refused to participate in Sunday's playoff game against Golden State. And I think that's an unfair thing to ask of the players, to sacrifice what they've worked for their entire careers, because of someone else's sins.

Had the Clippers boycotted the game, it would have been a grand gesture, but still only a gesture. Gestures and displays and protests can indeed have an impact, but only if they're part of a larger series of protests. There are better, bigger, and more effective protests than refusing to play one game. Meanwhile, the onus is on the NBA to take immediate action. There should be due process before any serious measure can be taken. While the investigation pends, however, the NBA can still suspend him from league and team activities, as well as from attending games.

If the players want to affect change, they should refuse to play for the team in the 2014-15 season, unless there is a change in ownership. The NBA Player's Association needs to make this a league-wide initiative for all players, not just those on the Clippers, not just black players, everyone. And the players - white, black, Hispanic, Asian, star players, bench warmers, draftees, college free agents - ALL must be united against playing for Donald Sterling.

The 29 other owners also need to take a stand, and be pressured to do so. The same goes for the NBA's offices. The other teams can't just stand by and let the league office decide what to do. The owners, from Boston to Miami to Portland to the LA Lakers, must pressure the NBA into doing the right thing. The owners can also urge Sterling to sell the team, or give up control of the team to a trust until a new owner is found.

The fans can also act. It would be a grand gesture for Clippers fans to choose not to attend Game 5 in LA on Tuesday. And images of an empty Staples Center would be quite powerful. An even stronger and more palpable protest would be for Clippers season ticket holders and luxury box owners to refuse to renew for the 2014-15 season, unless there's a change in ownership. The threat of losing that money is a serious weapon for Clippers fans. It will also make the ownership of the Staples Center turn on him as well.

Clippers fans, and NBA fans everywhere, can also boycott Clippers' merchandise and apparel. The NBA makes a ton of money and promotes its brand through apparel. The threat of losing that revenue will provoke action against Sterling.

It's unfair to ask 12 players to give up a season's worth of work because the guy who signs their paychecks is a racist. The players shouldn't be asked to stop playing, the owner should be forced to stop owning. Sterling is the one in the wrong here, he should be the one that loses something, not the players.

The NBA needs to suspend Sterling TODAY, while the investigation pends. The 29 other owners need to pressure Sterling to sell the team, and need to pressure the NBA to force Sterling to do so. The NBAPA needs to unify against Sterling and declare their intentions to refuse to play for any team owned or operated by him. Clippers fans need to use their purchasing power to convince Sterling that if he stays, he won't have fans filling the arena or buying his merchandise.

There's a great deal of outrage about what Sterling said. There are many people clamoring for something to be done. As I've outlined here, there are plenty of things that can be done. Instead of just asking the Clippers players to give up their season, or waiting for the NBA to make up its mind, if you want to see change, do your part. Write an email to the Celtics asking them to pressure the NBA to oust Sterling and asking them to pressure Sterling to give up the Clippers. Write an email to the NBA saying that you won't buy any Clippers merchandise until that team has a new owner.

Couple your outrage with action, don't just couple it with demands that others take action.

Red Wings Hold Sticks, Can't Hold Lead

The 1st period and the overtime were mirror images of each other. The Bruins were outshot 15-5 in the 1st, and then outshot Detroit 12-3 in overtime. In the middle were a number of big saves by Tuukka Rask, two huge misses by Brad Marchand, and lots of Red Wings holding on to Bruins sticks.

The Bruins' first line showed up fashionably late in this game. Milan Lucic tied it in the 3rd and Jarome Iginla was credited with the game-winner. Patrice Bergeron also had an assist on Torey Krug's power play goal in the 2nd.

Dougie Hamilton added 2 assists. That's 3 points for Hamilton in the 2 games in Detroit. Hamilton did more than any other skater to help the Bruins win both games on the road.

Tuukka Rask was the #1 star of the game, at least in my book (the media named Iginla the #1 star). He only allowed 1 goal in the 1st period when Detroit was dominating play. He stopped 35 of 37 shots, and the 2 pucks that got past him were essentially unstoppable. On the first goal Todd Bertuzzi eclipsed Rask's entire field of vision, and the second goal was a result of poor defensive coverage (Bartkowski falling down). Rask had no chance to stop either shot. Throughout the game he made the standard saves as well as some very tough ones.

If the Bruins had lost this game, it would have been Brad Marchand's fault. He had two empty nets in front of him, with plenty of time, plenty of space, and he missed the net both times. Not even close. Imagine a basketball player going for an uncontested layup and not even hitting the backboard.

Marchand is a pest, but he's also a top-6 forward and he's paid to play like one. Pests come cheap. He makes $4.5 million per year, and that salary isn't to get under opponents' skin, it's to put pucks in their nets. He has 0 points in this series. Going back to the Cup Finals last year that's 10 straight playoff games without a goal or an assist, and 12 since his last goal. Do your job, Marchand.

The Red Wings did quite a bit of stick holding, or "chicken winging" as Jack Edwards and Andy Brickley repeatedly called it. The Bruins tried to lobby the refs to make a call, to no avail. In these circumstances, when officials aren't calling the game the way the Bruins want it to be called, the B's tend to have one reaction: hit the guy.

It's not smart. It's harmful to your cause. It can result in stupid penalties, and only makes the opponent want to do it even more. They know they've gotten into your head.

The proper response, after lobbying the refs and failing, is to do it yourself. If the refs are letting Detroit get away with it, then do it to them. Fight fire with fire, not with fists and shoves.

Game 5 is Saturday afternoon in Boston. The Bruins can't be complacent. The opening period of this game showed how dangerous Detroit could be, and Jonas Gustavsson looked strong in net. I'm hoping Mike Babcock goes back to Jimmy Howard.

Photo Credit:
Carlos Osorio/Associated Press

Red Sox Beat the (Pine) Tar Out of the Yankees

I don't judge cheaters. As a New England Patriots fan, it would be bad form for me to act all high and mighty when a team I don't support is caught breaking the rules. I will not morally judge Michael Pineda or the New York Yankees for rules violations. Some in Boston are already acting all morally outraged, as if Pineda is the only pitcher who uses a foreign substance to treat the ball, and as if the Red Sox pitching staff isn't obsessive-compulsive about the sunscreen they use.

What pisses me off is how brazenly Pineda sported his pine tar cologne. It was a massive "fuck you" to the Red Sox and to the art of cheating. It's like Jose Canseco getting steroid injections in his butt during the 7th inning stretch, or Sammy Sosa weighing his corked bat in the dugout in front of everyone beat the Yankees 5-1.

I'm also pissed at the game of baseball. I hate how the umpires can clearly see this and yet won't do a single thing unless prodded by a manager. Isn't it the umpire's job to enforce the rules? And doesn't this policy of "See Something, Say Nothing" allow for rampant cheating to occur? Isn't that essentially what happened with steroids and HGH? No team called out other teams for using PEDs, so baseball turned a blind eye. And yet now the game is being sanctimonious about purity when it comes to Hall of Fame voting. "You were cheating, nobody called you out because they didn't want to expose their own players who were cheating, but nevertheless, you can't come to Cooperstown!"

I'm sure the Red Sox have pitchers who use foreign substances. After this game when John Farrell was asked about teams scrutinizing his own pitchers, he never once said "We have nothing to worry about, our pitchers don't do this."

None of the assembled media had the stones to ask "How come you did this when John Lackey was on the mound and not Clay Buchholz?" That was THE question to ask. Nobody asked it.

Also, how hypocritical is it for Jerry Remy to criticize Joe Girardi for letting his pitcher go out onto the mound with pine tar on his neck? Remy let his woman-beating son go out into the world and beat the crap out of women, eventually killing one. And now Rem-Dawg is going to take a moralistic stand on letting a pitcher go to the mound with pine tar on his neck?

I don't blame the Red Sox for calling out Pineda. He was blatant, he was disrespectful to the ancient art of baseball cheating. Baseball cheaters are to American history what ninjas are to Japanese history. Cheating is an integral part of baseball.

Have you ever heard of Mike "King" Kelly? He was the first truly big baseball star, playing back in the 1880s, and played for a few years in Boston for the team that would one day become the Braves. Back when there was only one umpire on the field, he would run from first to third, right across the diamond, when the ump wasn't looking. He's praised for that now, lauded and applauded. Revered and cheered. Cheating and baseball have been partners since baseball came to be.

At the same time, being caught cheating in baseball is one of the game's mortal sins. Most of the time.

In the case of Michael Pineda, I think the punishment of ejection fits the crime. The crime wasn't cheating, it was the way he cheated. He could have slathered pine tar inside his glove, on his hat, underneath a sleeve. Anywhere. He was lazy. He cheated in plain sight.

It's like if you've snuck a few nips into a sporting event or concert, and instead of buying a Coke and going to the bathroom to mix the soda with your Jim Beam, you do it in front of a security guard or a cop. What do you expect after that?

Breaking the rules is part of the American Way. Our country was founded by rule breakers. But be discreet about it. Paul Revere didn't tell the British in Boston "Hey I'm going for a ride for a few hours, see you motherfucking lobsterbacks tomorrow!" The American Way is to break the rules without being obvious about it. The American Way is to write your own rules and to not be caught breaking any other rules.

Welcome to America, Pineda, where cheating is tolerated, so long as you're not obvious about it.

Photo Credit:
Elise Amendola/Associated Press