Mils

I have a certain finger for all of those flyer and senator fans out there who are silently crying in their beers and trying to convince themselves that he's over-rated and washed up. The middle one. No. Emery would only show up if Theo went the other way.

I did forget Casey Mears and Scott Speed. I didn't know the other two started in open wheel.

Would they all have been better off negotiating something 3 months ago? Definitely. They would have been best served never splitting to begin with. So, yes, idiots. However, this is the best thing to happen to open wheel racing in a long long time, suppose it actually happens and Champ folds into the IRL. Given the past, I am thrilled that they are working together moving forward. I am ecstatic, and I will tell you why. With Sam Hornish, Dario Franchitti, Patrick Carpentier, Juan Pablo Montoya, A.J. Allmendinger, and Tony Stewart (he was in open wheel a decade ago) leaving open wheel for Nascar since the IRL-Champ Car split, open-wheel [non-formula 1] racing was not going to be legitimate for long with two supposedly top series's. Since the split, the Indy 500 has not been the same as both series have struggled for traction and recognition while nascar took off. While IRL and Champ Car were bickering and fighting for the attention of open-wheel race fans, Nascar grew their sport, and brought the drivers and the sport (Yes, it's a sport. We can argue about athletic. But if baseball is athletic, so is top level auto-racing. If you want to argue with me about this, start a different thread.) to those who were once indifferent to it or didn't understand it. I hope they run a 26-30 race schedule with an even mix of ovals and road courses. Both are fun to watch, and it would create parity among the drivers because the Wheldons and Castroneves' out there would dominate the ovals, while the Junquieras and the Powers would throw down on the road courses. In the more extended future, I cannot wait for this years' Indy 500. (I've been to the last 3, and am going again.) Instead of the usual 3 teams (Penske, Ganassi, AGR) competing for all of the awards, and only about 35-37 drivers compete for a spot on the starting grid, there will be much more drama about who gets in the field, and new teams will being new competition. Very exciting to me, considering there could reasonably be almost 50 drivers competing for the 11 rows of 3 in Indianapolis. This means that the guy in the 33 spot is probably a skilled enough driver to be in the front or middle of the pack instead of, as has been the case recently, replacement drivers and guys with no legitimate shot (P.J. Jones) were starting in the back 3 rows. The article speculates that as many as six teams could join the IRL for the coming season, as I understand it, with regular entries. This means (as the article confirms) that there could be in excess of 25, maybe as many 30 entries in the individual events (In IRL this year by itself, there should be 18-20 drivers per event.) Considering that the champ guys use Bridgestone Tires, a Cosworth Engine, and DP01 Chassiss and IRL almost all use Firestone Tires with a Honda engine and a Dallara chassis, (maybe 2 or 3 still use the Panoz... but not many, and maybe even then just on road courses) we could finally see some of the parity that we saw in the open-wheel world back pre-split. Take a look at the engine/chassis combos back in the early-mid 90s, and you have some pushrod engines. Oldsmobile, Mercedes, Ford, Chevrolet, and Cosworth were all making engines. It made for great competition because the skill of the whole team and the strength of the car all contributed to a winning effort. On the down side, you aldo had a lot of guys go out of races on blown engines, but you don't see that so much anymore. Plus, it appears that the teams coming over will use the Dallara/Honda combo... so it's a non-issue... the parity would still be cool to see again. I guess the IRL has an exclusive deal with Honda. It might be interesting if open-wheel and nascar got together and put on big-time race weekends with Nascar and open-wheel running races at the same tracks on the same day or the same weekends. Maybe at Daytona when Nascar runs their second race there? Or do the Indy 500 and th nascar race at the Brickyard on the same weekend. (I know, there are scheduling issues and whole host of other problems that make that idea unworkable, I'm just thinking out loud. It would be a lot of fun for race fans from all over to get together around one weekend. It would do a lot to grow both sports.) There isn't an agreement yet between IRL and Champ, but I trust that if ESPN is reporting on it, then it must be darn near close. If this materializes, I'll be like a kid in a candy store this summer watching the best open-wheel drivers (again, not including F-1, they're in a league of their own. A comparison would be apples to oranges.) compete against each other. Guys like Paul Tracy and Sebastian Bourdais can make a return to Indianapolis, and we get to see if the oval experts can compete when road courses are thrown in there. Hopefully the folks at the Twin Ring are willing to reschedule, and not stand in the way of the merger. I am really excited. Hopefully this is the beginning of the strengthening of open-wheel racing back to where it was around 1990.

You're right about Theo. You're right about Hannan, Liles, and Skratch. You're right about Giguere. You're right about Wolski. You're wrong about Shattenkirk. We got him as a bargain at 14. He could have easily been top 10. He's very much constructed in the Liles/Leopold mold. Giving up Liles, Shattenkirk, and a pick for Tomas Kaberle would be overpaying by a wide margin. He doesn't bring the commanding presence that we need, and he's not waiving his NTC.

Jets: While it eliminates two options that were open to the Avalanche 2 days ago, I really don't think this is a huge loss, when taken as a whole. They both require large salaries compared to their contribution, and I don't think either would have been the best fit right now. Forsberg: We've already got too many centers hanging around those top two lines. Granted, there have been injuries, but trying to land a guy like Forsberg to replace temporary injury needs doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Here's my main beef with Forsberg though: He's virtually guaranteed to miss about half of the season with injury, and the team wouldn't ba able to pay him accordingly. We already have one salary albatross (Theo - He's been better lately), and I think this would create another. I'd be psyched to have him back, but that's for mostly sentimental reasons. Blake: One of the Avs biggest needs right now is a big, physical defenseman. Scott Hannan turned into a teddy bear in the defensive zone when he signed in Colorado, so the need remains. Sauer isn't doing it, and Skrastins is near the end of his career. I don't think there are any untouchable defensemen on the Avs blueline. Blake is old, and as we've seen in L.A., his big-time impact ability have fallen at least, if not gone away. I think we need a guy about 10 years younger than Blake who is a physical, defensive presence. So, I'm bummed that neither of them are coming, but I don't think either is a total loss. The Avs can get a better fit at a better price at the deadline with Forsberg and Blake off the table. Hossa would be a good pick-up, but the question is who it would take to get him. (Hensick, a grinder, a pick? Maybe it would take Hejduk?) He's probably better than Hejduk, but his price tag would be worrisome. A big scary physical defenseman would be my #1 priority if I was Giguere. Rumor has it TB is interested in Theo... what could we get from them? G - Helenius, D - Smaby, D - Mihalik... any of those would be interesting.

Let the trading season begin in earnest.

That makes a lot of sense. He isn't wanted by the police, but he wasn't allowed to come back to the team. It didn't appear to be a coach Gwozdecki thing... I am willing to bet you're right, that it's grades related.

I haven't read or heard anything more than that.

January 19 was his last game action. He played against Bemidji State at Magness Arena in Denver. He had a shorthanded goal and an assist in a 4-2 win for DU. His departure hurt the team too. 2 losses against unranked Minnesota State (Mankato), and a tie against #20 Minnesota before they finally won again 4-1 over Minnesota. Any conclusive word on what happened to cause his departure from DU? I really enjoyed watching him play.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20080209/ca..._habs_trotter_2 I've had a chance to see him play here in Denver, and Brock Trotter is an excellent player. Very high quality UFA pick-up. He's got excellent speed, is very shifty in traffic, and has excellent offensive and defensive awareness. His major downside may be that he is certainly shoot-first, sometimes at the expense of setting up an open teammate, and he's only 5-9, 165. He also does not dazzle with an overwhelmingly hard shot, although it is very accurate. Hopefully he makes it to the pros, he's a good player. He might remind some of a Marek Svatos, Andrew Cogliano, or T.J. Hensick type. I don't think there's much of a comparison to any current Habs.

Good point. I'm hoping you're right, and that Obama takes the rest of these states by storm.

Clinton vs. McCain. At least that's what it looks like now. And the independents (me) have nowhere to go... A ridiculous health care system and horrible economic policy vs. a scary Iraq war policy and a social policy that's all over the map. Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink. Worst super tuesday outcome possible... on both sides.

Finally, something that makes sense, but you're still not proving your point. The fact that Canadian teams are only in 2 divisions (NE and NW) means, like you say, that at least 2 out of the top 3 playoff seeds in each division will be U.S. teams. This means that, by the nature of the system, Canadian teams have less access to top playoff seedings because it is possible that the top 3 in each conference are all American. However, it is only possible that 2 of those top 6 sopts go to Canadian teams. It would probably be more fair to have 1 canadian team in each division by this theory. Unfortunately, your argument is still lost because the ultimate reason that Canadian teams don't make it to the 3rd round against each other is that they don't win. If your teams (all 6 canadian clubs) win enough games to make it to the playoffs (they don't) and then they won their playoff series' in the first round (they won't), then you would have 3 canadian teams in the second round in each conference. If your canadian teams won again, then one would be eliminated by default, and you would have 2 canadian teams in each of the conference finals match-ups. Once again, winning is the magic bullet. Sucking does not = a conspiracy against you and your teams.

I don't care what playoff position you start in. If you win, you advance, it's that easy. Playoffs seedings are determined my how many games you win. Just win. Your conspiracy theories are absolutely ridiculous. What kind of inferiority complex do you have to have to make these sorts of arguments? With your example, all it would take for the canadian teams to meet in the arbitrarily selected third round would be a win by the #6 or #7 team, then The sens would play the 6/7, the habs would play the 2/3 that wins in the first round. Then if both Canadian teams win (there's that magical W word again), poof, they're in the third round against each other. Upsets happen all the time, just saying "suppose no upsets" isn't a sound theory because it so rarely happens that way. JUST WIN.

Positive. haha.

Here's a thought: Win rounds 1 and 2... that was easy. No blaming the system for your team not performing. Are you serious? You aren't leaving any trace of a common-sensical argument. First, it isn't anybody else's responsibility to explain to you why the playoff system is the way it is. The burden is on you to describe why they're flawed, and you haven't done that yet. Anything short of a rule that says "No more than 1 Canadian team per conference in the conference finals" is unsatisfactory. You haven't come close to showing anything other than you're a bit of a sore loser. Maybe when your 14th birthday rolls around, this conundrum will trouble you too. Here's the math that you obviously haven't considered, Sir Mensalot: 6 out of 30 teams are from Canada, that's 1/5, 20%. For the sake of simplicity, since that's apparently your modus operandi, we'll do this by conference. 3/15 is still 1/5, still 20%. The % sign means "out of 100." Still with me? For whatever ridiculously arbitrary reason, you've chosen the third round of the playoffs, but we'll go with it, so long as it doesn't wrinkle your foil hat. The third round means that there are 2 teams remaining out of 15, that's 1 in 7.5, roughly 13.3%. What you're asking is that the 1 out of 5 also be the 1 out of 7.5. Now, suppose that the 3rd round of the playoffs (did I already say arbitrary?) happened entirely by random chance. (It doesn't because the Candian teams aren't as good... they don't win... but just suppose) In the event that it's a random chance, then out of 100 playoff scenarios involving all 15 teams from one conference, the odds of 2 out of the 3 canadian teams from that conference making it to the final 2 is about 1/37.5 (That's 1/5 * 1/7.5) To put it another way, if the playoffs were determined randomly, 2 Canadian teams will meet in the conference finals about 2.667% of the time. Not even 3/100 times. IN OTHER WORDS: If the playoffs were randomly decided (they're not), and we played 100 seasons, then you would be lucky to have 2 canadian teams make it to the 3rd round of the playoffs more than twice in one conference. If we extended these numbers to include both conferences, and we played 100 seasons, then you would be likely to see 2 canadian teams make it to the conference finals in one conference or another 4 or 5 times in those 100 seasons. If 2 Canadian teams haven't seen each other in the third round by the year 2016, then you might have a statistical argument.... but statistics can't account for Canadian teams with no playoff success. So... you're still either wrong, or just not thinking through it far enough. With 6 out of 30 teams from Canada, the odds of there being 2 Canadian teams from the same conference being the last 2 from their conference are just not very good. But I can stil hear you saying, "But the playoff seeding system is unfair towards Canadian tems." No. The teams that win move on to the third round of the playoffs. It's simple. The system has nothing to do with it. Win. No whining until you do so. Also, your Blue Jays comment didn't constitute one iota of coherent sence... at all. Truth hurts sometimes.

They can follow you wherever they want, so long as you're in public and they aren't causing you to engage in a criminal act where you otherwise would not. Also, if you were not wearing a seat belt where the law required and you made a U-turn where the law prohibited, then you probably should see if the prosecutor will plead them down to something less, and if not, just save your time. Here's what to do: (but first, know that once the ticket is written, any quota requirement (which are rare anymore) is met, so the system is only interested in finding you guilty of crimes committed. Also, I'm giving you the U.S. version of things, so if you're in Canada, consult with a licensed legal authority there. (I am not licensed to practice law anywhere. This is just my personal opinion.) 1.) Look at the ticket, find the actual name and number of the statutes under which you were cited. Look them up. This is possible at any legal library. Ask the librarians for assistance. 2.) If you actually violated the law (i.e.-driving without a seatbelt and making a U-turn where prohibited), acknowledge that you did it, but still go to the prosecutor. Also, continue to #3. 3.) Go to the court date on your ticket (this is an arraignment, not a trial), and tell the prosecutor the truth about what happened. At best, they will dismiss if it's something minor, at worst they will tell you to go to trial. Most likely, they will explain your situation and give you a few options. You cannot get in more trouble at this stage. You have the right (at least in the U.S.) to a trial by jury, with a presumption of innocence, before you are convicted of a crime. 4.) If the prosecutor gives you a plea bargain that you can live with (they don't want you on a court docket any more than you want to be there), then accept it and be on your way. (If you commited a crime, you won't get off with nothing, so be reasonable.) If you honestly believe that you did not commit the offense charged, and they don't give you a legally convincing explanation about why you are guilty, don't accept the offer... the next step is a pre-trial conference... no biggie. 5.) If you are still unsatisfied, consider getting a lawyer. DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer or an attorney of any kind, and do not represent myself as such. I am not licensed to practice law in any state in the U.S. or in any other country. I cannot give advice that is legally binding, and as such, relying on my advice is strictly done at your own peril. My recommendations are nothing more than a suggestion, and I cannot be held liable for any legal action taken against you at any time. In order to receive official legal advice, consult a licensed attorney in your area regarding your case. I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS MERELY MY PERSONAL, NON-PROFESSIONAL OPINION.

You're kidding. Right? A conspiracy by Americans in the NHL to develop a playoff system by which Canadian teams are eliminated as early as possible?... Really? I have a way to keep Canadian teams in the playoffs... Win.

What's the big deal? The trade-off for the teams that these guys play for is that they have to go half the season without a star player, and they can't spend the cap money they would give him. The NHL should not regulate everything to the piont that most of you are suggesting. If a player doesn't want to sign a contract, that's his problem. It's up to the individual teams whether they want to sign a guy who hasn't been with them the whole year. If the teams put up with it, then the league shouldn't have to do anything. If a star player was coming to sign with the habs, we wouldn't hear any of this out of any of you. Jealousy is all this is.

How do you figure? Hillary is seen as the more blue-collar of the two remaining legitimate democratic candidates.

If only the NHL had so much sense.

Your signature line about Saku made me laugh harder than anything anyone has ever written on these boards. KoZed wins.

Another person sees the light. Good call. Welcome kenadian.

Disclaimer: I am in the middle. I like different things about almost all of the candidates, and don't like things about each of them. I am not supporting or arguing against Hillary. I have watched her too. Here's where I get confused. The logical problem: She says she's been supporting change for 35 years. If she had been effective, wouldn't the change have occurred? Wouldn't she then have to campaign against change? I agree that certain things need to be changed right now, but what has she really "changed"? Is there a discernable destination or is she just talking about change for the sake of change? Striving for change for its own sake would not be useful in a president. In my opinion, change is only worthwhile if there's a destination or goal that, if acheived, would improve society. The substance problem: She is the worst of the candidates (closely followed by Obama and Huckabee) of talking in broad generalities and not really committing to anything. Al Gore wrote the book on this sort of thing. She wants to do these different things, as listed on her website, but she talks in broad, unsubstantiated generalities. Example from her economic policy: "Empower our workers and ensure that all Americans contribute their fair share. Hillary will ensure that unions, which have played an important role in forming and sustaining the middle class, are strong. She will also ensure that trade policies work for average Americans. Trade policy must raise our standard of living, and they must have strong protections for workers and the environment." That's all well and good, and certainly something worth voting for. But she hasn't said anything. There is a total lack of definitional consistency. What do empowered employees look like? How do you empower employees? how do you ensure that unions are strong?... you get the idea, there's nothing to bank on in those words. This is analogous to a hockey coach saying, "We should play at a level that is sufficient to defeat our opponents." It's nice to hear, and it's certainly true, but it would be more helpful for a coach to say "We're going to win by playing more physically in the corners and using our speed in transition." They're both true, but the second statement has more useful content that the first, and I feel like Hillary spends more time talking like the first example as opposed to the second. I would like her to tell me more "how" and a lot less "what" and "why." Granted, there are other areas where she uses some specificity. I only cited one paragraph, and there are certainly other examples of these vague and ambiguous statement, just like there are some examples where she is much more clear. I'm not raising this issue for everything she says. I just find that she suffers from being a politician more than her competition. Do you get the same idea?

I don't see it in Colorado either. It will be interesting to see what other teams do as far as 8+ year deals. DiPietro and Ovechkin are setting a weird trend. What does this mean for Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Kane, Stastny, Backstrom?