saskhab
-
Posts
3452 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by saskhab
-
-
I'm trying to figure out what kind of trade value Turris has. I'm stumped. More than Eller, and if so, by how much? Weber plus Palsuhaj? Kostitsyn?
-
I still expect Woywitka to make the Habs.
Joonas Nattinen could still be sent back to Finland, although 4th line in the. I don't think he's a lock for 3rd line C with the Bulldogs at all. Gabriel Dumont is most definitely ahead of him. You can probably pencil in one of Trotter, Engqvist or Palushaj into the Habs lineup. Longershots would be Willsie or Blunden.
Etienne Brodeur will be an interesting tryout as well... was he just a benefactor of the criminally underrated Kabanov?
-
Brick City is going bankrupt, who own 47% of the Devils. Jeff Vanderbeek, who owns another 47%, is trying to buy out Brick City (and I'd assume sell those shares at some point for a profit). It's not nearly as cut and dry as the Post's story made it out to be. The team is going through refinancing to complete this buyout.
-
Hope everyone had a great summer, it feels good to be on the brink of a new season. Anyways about this topic, I would like to see Mara signed to a two way deal. He would be a great mentor to the kids and a excellent call up option if needed, especially at playoff time.
I'm really surprised no one has signed him or at least given him a camp invite.
He may not want to go to the minors in his twilight. Some guys just would rather wait out for a NHL contract once injuries hit.
-
On the first point, I'm not sure we disagree. You say that using the logo doesn't intrinsically align itself to militarism - which may be true - but basically concede that in the present context, it does, as per the boldfaced part. And we both dislike the kind of statement implied, in the present context. There's nothing to be gained in putting our hands over our ears and singing la-la-la while the practical reality is that the Jets are symbolically aligning themselves with a realignment of Canadian values. These things don't happen in a vacuum.
On the second point, I didn't say that Pearson and Trudeau had a more mature attitude; I said that Canadians in the Pearson/Trudeau era - actually, I should have said the Pearson/Trudeau/Mulroney/Chretien eras - had a more mature attitude to war. Proving this would require a sophisticated use of running public opinion surveys, and it may be that the wider public hasn't changed, so much as the governing and media elites. I'll grant that it can be hard to distinguish between the public and elite opinon. What we can say is that the current government would have poured Canadian blood and treasure into Iraq while the Chretien government did not.
Now, what's a "mature" attitude to war? Clearly, this is a matter of opinion, but that shouldn't rule out any discussion of the matter. There's a school of thought that sees any form of "squeamishness" about war as a form of pie-in-the-sky immaturity; and it's worth noting that the proponents of this supposedly "realistic" view were hot to trot to drag Canada into the Iraqi bloodbath, as though that were self-evidently a requirement of sensible foreign policy. These "realists" also poured scorn on "Taliban Jack" Layton for proposing that we negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, when two years later the generals were conceding that we would have to do precisely that. Who has been the "realist" here? The "bleeding heart peaceniks" who wanted crazy things like actual evidence of WMDs in Iraq, or a rational discussion of our objectives in Afghanistan; or the "realists" who want to rush in with unclear goals, waste billions of dollars, incinerate and kill untold thousands of innocents as "collateral damage," not to mention our own soliders, and then withdraw with relatively little accomplished? You can guess which position I'd consider "mature." The "realists" seem to hold a view of the world as a gigantic first-person shooter video game.
One of the traditions of our parliamentary system is that it makes the Official Opposition party essentially not so much left or right wing, but anti-whatever the government is doing. In that light, we can't say for sure that the Alliance Party of 2003 would have went into Iraq if they were the governing party... they wouldn't have had the same obligations to the Canadian people in their role as the government as they did back then (which was to represent an opposing view). Certainly, after the fact, Harper has admitted that his party's stance was wrong back then, but we can't know for certain that they would have followed, although their reasoning for following back then (both US and UK were going, essentially) would lend itself to the conclusion that they would have went. The Canadian public back then was against going, though, and politicians do realize that entering a war without public support isn't exactly a good move.
In your last paragraph, you talk about a rational discussion of objectives, but I guess if you are accepting war you are accepting the loss of life, including bystanders. Cold rational analysis would calculate that into the 'worthiness' of going to war. The goal of Afghanistan was actually pretty clear: to remove a regime that harboured international terrorists, who attacked the United States in their territory. To get to the terrorists, the Taliban had to be toppled. Once the Taliban were toppled, a new regime would have to be installed and they would have to be able to run a secure nation. Right from the start, there was warnings about the 1980s conflicts and that we could be in Afghanistan for over a decade in order to stabilize it. NATO invoked a clause that the member nations considered it an attack on a fellow member, and all countries within NATO were called into action. It wasn't a NATO force, but it had the full support of the allies, of which Canada was one.
As per Iraq, you're correct in your skepticism, as were many other nations at the time. Canada didn't act alone in their refusal to enter that war, a majority of the European Union and I believe New Zealand and Japan didn't join, etc. The Iraq invasion also compromised the Afghanistan mission and exposed Canadian troops to the full force of the conflict. The goals of Afghanistan remained the same in this time, but unfortunately the Iraq invasion helped the Taliban make it into a guerilla war. The goals weren't obtuse or unknown anymore: the strategy was terrible and the results were the issue.
To me, the shift of Canada to the right is simply a matter of the country's age. The sellout generation is at retirement age now, and the rest of us are left to pick up the slack for them.
-
4. While all Canadians should be respectful of the armed forces, whose members make great sacrifices and undertake great risks in our name, for a hockey team to so glaringly align itself with militarism is in effect, if not in intention, a political statement. There are those of us who see war as a fearful necessity of last resort - the most morally serious undertaking in which a people can engage. Now the Jets are demanding that their entire community rally around a glib expression of militarism, turning a matter of life and death into nothing more important than a hockey team. This is the sort of de facto propaganda that helps to condition a society to celebrate war rather than resist or lament it. And that in turn leads to tragic lunacies, such as the mindless and catastrophic American rush to go into Iraq.
Sorry, don't see that at all. I get that it aligns itself with the air force, but co-opting that logo does not represent a political agenda, or make a statement on the usage of such force. You can be supportive of the people involved in the pursuit and even wear their colours and still believe that war is reprehensible and should only be used in the manner you subscribe. Heck, you can wear the colours in support of the men and women that make up the force and be 100% pacifist.
I hate it when people use the honouring of the military, the deceased, etc., as a means to their political agenda. But because you honour the military does not mean you honour a political agenda.
I'd prefer the Jets did not homage the military because in hockey that tends to lead to Don Cherry style grandstanding. It definitely seems to align itself with conservative Canada, something quite prevalant in the hockey community, but it does not necessarily do so simply by using a logo like this, holding military nights, etc.
Canadians in the Pearson/Trudeau era had a much more mature attitude to war, which contributed to our self-definition as peacekeepers and supporters of international law. Unfortunately we have taken a step back in this regard, back toward an adolescent rah-rah militarism. A shame the Jets chose to roll with that.No offence, but you want to know why generations of people find the Liberal party arrogant and condascending? Part of it is in the first sentence in that paragraph. A 'much more mature attitude to war' is completely a matter of perspective, not a fact. Quite frankly, Trudeau's handling of the October Crisis didn't seem to align with this line of thinking at all.
Anyways, I don't like the military motif, either because it simply opens up the logo to misuse and what not. Also, I'm not entirely sure why they have to be so blunt about the fact that the team is located in Canada, as if anyone was going to forget. There were also way better designs out there put forth by amateurs, so when this came out it was very disappointing even from an aesthetic point of view.
The uniforms themselves look pretty good, though. The striping on the sleves on the whites is kind of awkward because they decided to put a blue stripe all the way down the arms, but other than that it's a nice, clean design.
-
I honestly don't think they need to move Kostitsyn to get a guy like Pahlsson, nor do I think they want to. For the first time in a long time, the Habs have legitimate offensive depth. If (when?) a winger in the top-6 goes down, I know I'll feel a lot better seeing them plug Kostitsyn in there than a Darche or Moen. I can understand why some want to move Kostitsyn but as I said in my note in the Desharnais piece on the site, enjoy having the offensive depth while you can. It'll surely come in handy at some point.
Look at the Bruins (I know, tough to say). They had Ryder as their 3rd line RW and Seguin as a healthy scratch. Both stepped up in certain moments to be key in their victory.
There is no such thing as too much talent.
-
They might be preparing to take on someone else's mistake. I don't really know.
They did offer Hamrlik a decent amount of what the space currently is, but other than that I don't know of any other offers they had out there. I'm guessing they want the wiggle room for next year and don't want to commit long term, and have had few takers on short term offers that would get them to the cap.
-
I think Iginla has been on the cover about seven times in the past ten years. Only Phaneuf and Kiprusoff have broken his run that I can remember.
They've been playing up the Oilers' youth for about five years now.
-
I think Woywitka might make it as the 23rd roster spot... last year, the Habs carried 8 d-men when they were healthy enough to have 8 D, I think they might do the same this year with Woywitka in the Picard role.
-
I have my choice of Oilers or Flames on the cover. Haven't seen a Jets cover yet.
-
I'd be able to find a spot on today's team for both Grabovski and D'Agostini (I still think we'll end up winners of the D'Agostini trade, though). The rest would be in the AHL or a spare. Well, Lapierre would probably be in the lineup, but not with Grabbo and D'ago on the team as well.
-
45 seconds per game in the regular season, good for about 8th amongst Hab forwards. (I'm not getting caught not checking my stats again...
) I would hazard a guess that a somewhat significant portion of that came in the 3rd period when trailing where the Habs just needed a goal. So although he did see a little time on the PK, I probably wouldn't read a whole lot into it.I think he mainly got his shifts near the ends of penalties so that the Habs could get back to the offence as soon as the guy came out of the box. Or, like you said, when they were short on players.
-
You caught me, didn't check the stats when I posted that. As I said before, I don't think they're a runaway favourite for the division by any stretch but if Crosby is gone long-term, you have to think Philly will be in the hunt. It won't be the Islanders, probably not the Devils, and I'm not sold on the Rangers defensively just yet. Are they a better team today? Probably not (unless van Riemsdyk and Giroux have another level while guys like Jagr and Voracek step in to the shoes of the aforementioned) but they're still a playoff team; of that I have little doubt.
I generally agree, but I think Philly has a lot more question marks than Pittsburgh.... Pitt is a great roster that probably has close to a 1 in 3 shot at winning the East if Crosby comes back and plays even 50 games. Pitt has the best D in the conference plus some pretty good offensive players beyond Crosby... without Sid and Geno last year they still held their own.
I don't think anyone in that division will really touch Pittsburgh.... I'm thinking there will be a dozen or more point gap between first and second there. Philly, Jersey and the Rangers are in the battle for playoff spots, but there are a lot of open spots this year and Philly will more than likely be there in the end. Might end up being a 2 v 7 Pitt-Philly first round, though.
-
Pronger is a huge question mark for Philly this year. He won't be ready at the start of training camp, and didn't finish last year.
I honestly don't think their goaltending cost them that many games, dblar. .916 and .915 SV%'s don't really allow for a lot of lost points. They were already allowing only about 2.5 goals a game, so that lost offence should account for more losses than any improvements in the GA column.
-
I wonder if the text he got 'while writing this blog' had anything to do with Gomez or not. I'm thinking it was a reminder to pay his cell phone bill.
-
This is all important because I still can't get RDS HD for some reason.
-
Looking at a calendar... it's August 22. Sure, anything is possible, but with the offseason in super slow motion, good ole Ek is fishing for a few extra hits to try and impress advertisers.
-
Wait, how many pre-season games are the Habs even playing?
-
Hmm...I am confused then. Last year McGratten signed a 2 way deal with the Bruins, and I think he signed for less than some amount which means he wouldn't be claimed by waivers...or was that jsut re-entry waivers and could have been picked up going down?
Yeah, it just would've exempted him from re-entry waivers, it wouldn't protect him going down. Which is what Woywtika's deal does as well.
-
As someone noted earlier in the year, for NHL CBA matters, don't Google it, 'dlbalr' it.
This should be good for Hamilton as it means that Diaz, barring a huge push, will be playing a lot of games there.
-
He's at best a #7 on this team. But smart to have some guys with NHL experience to call upon considering the fragility of Markov, Spacek, and Gorges coming off a big injury, too. I get the feeling that despite his two-way deal, he'll stick around a la Picard last year. Which would mean there's probably only room for one extra forward on the roster as we'd be carrying 8 D.
-
He wasn't complaining - what he said was (of course) taken out of context by Montreal media.
How do we know this wasn't taken out of context, too?
And yes, what MaxPac said was essentially complaining since he feels he shouldn't play on the 3rd line in any league, which is where Martin had him playing in 2009-10. While he was content in Hamilton, it was a swipe to how he was used the previous season.
-
Martin takes on the bad cop persona in dealing with the players, so this isn't necessarily surprising. They key thing to know is that Martin isn't a dictator-type boss... he delegates a lot of responsibility to his assistants. Muller's job was to bring the players back in after Martin chewed them out. Now I suppose it's Cunneyworth's job to do that.
I don't see this as particularly incendiary or surprising.
Columbus Blue Jackets
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/09/13/unheralded-mark-dekanich-is-a-player-to-watch/
Jonathon Willis thinks Mark Dekanich is a player to watch in 2011-12. I agree... it's hard to argue with Nashville's reputation for developing goalies and Dekanich's minor league numbers have been very impressive.