Mils

I like the bold topics, so they're here again. What's wrong with a little bit of formality on a message board? Incomplete information: Selective memory, my friend. Be careful. You're forgetting #68 most notably... among some other big names. --From 1990 until Lemieux left in 1997, the Penguins had Jagr, Francis, Robitaille (1 season), Recchi, Trottier, Coffey, Kovalev, Lang, Nedved, Zubov (1 season), Samuelsson, and Murphy. Not to mention Kevin Stevens, the only first or second team all-star on the 1990-1991 team. Oh yeah... and a coach named Scotty... some of you may have heard of him. Some quick facts: Jagr was arguably the best player in the NHL for a long time. Bryan Trottier has a total of 7 cup rings, Ron Francis was one of the most underrated players in the history of the game. Petr Nedved (along with Joe Sakic) is creditted with one of the best wrist shots in the NHL. Bryan Trottier was considered one of the best ever until Gretzky came along. Barrasso: Don't be so quick to hold Fuhr over Barrasso... Barrasso's career numbers suggests he was at least Fuhr's equal as far as goaltending goes. Fuhr: 3.38 GAA, Save% .887, 403 W in 868 games (.464 win%), 5 cups. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/200/career Barrasso: 3.25 GAA, Save% .892, 357 W in 743 games (.480 win%) 2 cups. http://espn.go.com/nhl/profiles/stats/career/0097.html AND IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH: You're totally ignoring the 8 years in Los Angeles where Gretzky had Robitaille, Kurri, Blake.....and Granato? With goaltending legend Kelly Hrudey in net and coaching disaster Barry Melrose behind the bench (for 3 of those years, I believe). Conclusion: They both had decent supporting casts. That doesn't clinch the argument against Gretzky. Not a chance. As for Bobby Orr: It's a tougher argument because he's a defenseman, but longevity plays a part in this discussion undoubtedly. Ask Barry Sanders. I think Gretzky's blinding dominance over the course of 21 seasons (vs. Orr's 12 seasons) alone puts him safely over Orr. Orr may have been the best defenseman ever, but that's also debatable because offense only plays so much in that discussion.

**Applause** **More applause** **Standing ovation** To anybody who still wants to argue Gretzky is "bigger than the game"... he apparently isn't above the rules. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=222809&hubname=

Bigger than the game? No. But Gretzky isn't bigger than the game... he's basically ignored anymore, and has to follow the rules just like everyone else. Worthy to be called the great one? Yes. Because it's a nickname. Was Tiger Williams actually a Tiger? Was Stu Grimson literally the Grim Reaper? Worthy of having his jersey retired league-wide? Probably not. He was one of only two players to ever wear the number, but at the same time he's not Jackie Robinson, like in baseball... Robinson is more deserving of league-wide recognition.... but league-wide jersey retirement is dumb to begin with, just like the Avalanche retiring #77. Does having his number retired league-wide mean he's "bigger than the game"? No. (What does that "bigger than the game" even mean?)

You're confusing your opinion with fact.... again. Surprise surprise. Just because you sit wherever you are and foster a bias that says, "Any place with sunshine and decently attractive women doesn't deserve a hockey team," doesn't have any bearing on whether Wayne Gretzky was responsible for expansion, or whether expansion was good or bad for the NHL. Wayne Gretzky was not the only factor in expansion. Indeed, I would argue he wasn't even the biggest factor. Here's why: 1.) The 1994 New York Rangers, and the 1995 New Jersey Devils were largely responsible for drawing American interest to hockey. The "cursed" 1994 New York Rangers won the stanley cup amid a ton of fanfare, a "guarantee," and a glut of media attention, simply because they were in New York. New Jersey is New York, just smaller and stinkier, for all intents and purposes. 2.) Sports Illustrated, in a column that I don't have the time or the energy to look up, said in 1994 that hockey would become bigger than basketball in the next 5 years. While this never happened, it woke up a lot of American viewers to check it out. Once they saw the ticket prices, and the quality of play from 1995-2004 (the period of Bettman's expansion and the neutral zone trap), though, they went back to sleep on the subject. 3.) Canadian Fans Yes you, Canadian hockey fans, particularly in Quebec and Winnipeg, are responsible for the proliferation of hockey in the United States because you wouldn't go out and support your teams. Both teams left because they had no money, and the fans in Phoenix and Colorado were willing to spend on tickets, players (Colorado, at least), and new arenas (Pepsi Center and Glendale Arena). If you had gone to see the teams play, they'd still be there. The Nordiques described their own situation as a "financial hell" during the press conference where the sale to Denver based Ascent Sports was announced. Money comes from sponsors and the fans. Y'all can complain and whine and all of that about how horrible it is that your teams moved away, but it's your own fault. Take responsiblity. If the fans in Nashville can mobilize and save their team, then what was your problem? (And the Canadian Dollar is a weak excuse.) 4.) The Biggest Reason: Bettman There was no expansion during the 1980s. The early 90s, pre-Bettman saw some expansion into non-conventional hockey markets and Ottawa, but it was limited. Gary Bettman took the helm of the NHL on Feb. 1, 1993 (Wikipedia). This was after San Jose, Ottawa, and Tampa Bay were already established. Florida and Anaheim were on their way, Hartford, Quebec, Minnesota, and Winnipeg all had teams. Bettman makes no secret of the fact that he wanted to, and still wants to expand aggressively, expecially into non-traditional markets. Under his reign, Winnipeg and Quebec moved to Phoenix and Colorado, Hartford moved to Carolina, and the North Stars were in transition to Dallas. The Blue Jackets, Thrashers, Predators, and Wild have all been added since then, and Bettman wants to add 2 more. Bettman is the guy to be angry at (and yes, PTG, we all know you are in fact angry at him). Bettman wanted teams in non-traditional markets, and did nothing to try and steer the Nordiques and Jets into other Canadian markets rather than Phoenix and Denver. Gretzky may have helped bring hockey to the American consciousness, but it's important to remember that there were already teams in the U.S., particularly in Sourthern California (Kings and Golden Seals) before Gretzky even played for the Indianapolis Racers. To blame Gretzky for expansion is misplaced because he came after hockey was already in Southern California. Although I agree, as a fan, that expansion makes the game less enjoyable to follow, expansion is not categorically "bad." **That's another one of those fact/opinion connundrums** My opinion is that the league would be best at 24-28 teams, because of the concentration of super-star talent. Revenues (a good measure of the success of a business, in my opinion), have gone up since expansion ended. While revenues took a hit with the work stoppage, that would have ahppened if the league was 12 teams or 80 teams. The last 3 seasons, revenues have increased, so expansion cannot be categorically "bad." In fact, expansion is good for business. Finally, you have no way of knowing what would have happened if Gretzky had not gone to L.A. Because I believe in constructive criticism, maybe next time instead of asserting a total fallacy, you could say, "I think I would have liked the NHL better had Gretzky not ever gone to L.A."

You know that Alex Rodriguez will sign a contract in the coming weeks for $25-$30 million a year right??

There is no way you could convince me that Wayne Gretzky's collective effect on the NHL is negative. Given, the fact that he went to a big U.S. market is destined to irritate a lot of Canadian "traditionalists," you're letting that cloud your view. Without #99, hockey is somewhere between bowling and Soccer in popularity, never gets an ESPN contract in the first place (and they'll return to ESPN), and remains a niche sport played in 15 different pro/semi-pro leagues across Canada.

By that theory, then Roy should be up at the top, if not #1 (buttefly goaltender). And Bernie Geoffrin not far behind him (Slapshot). Then Jacque Plante (Facemasks). Revolutionizing the game does not equal greatness. They're two separate categories. Perhaps a huge group of Habs fans see Maurice Richard through rosy lenses? He's over-rated on these boards, that's for sure. (Guy LaFleur had more career goals) All of this from the same group that wanted to crown Jose Theodore the best goalie ever after he won one Hart trophy. Lemieux may be the only forward who could touch Gretzky, but injuries are a factor when "greatest" is considered. Trying to make a comparison to Orr is apples to oranges. 99 was better than Mr. Hockey. The numbers Gretz put up were hands-down domination. Nobody else is close. Gretzky made players around him better and took advantage of having some excellent players around him in Edmonton and L.A. Messier, Kurri, Robitaille, Tikkanen all were made even better because they were on the ice at the same time Gretzky was. He has just about every offensive record you can conceive of, a fistfull of stanley cup rings, and awards and accolades coming out his ears. He did everything, and he did it without a commanding physical presence and facing other teams' best defense every night. As for this "did me make his teammates better, or did they make him better" thing, it's probably shades of grey. When you have as many assists as Gretzky did, you are going to, by default, have others around you with high point totals, because assists (unlike goals) require another player to participate. It's a circular argument because you can just say, "He got a lot of assists because there were goal scorers around him" and reply to that with, "There were goal scorers around him because he got a lot of assists" and so on. But let's not forget Gretzky scored more goals than any other player too.

As much as I would love for Denver to be Hockeytown USA (and it's my personal favorite), the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul have got to be hockeytown, USA. It's a total sham that Detroit ever comandeered that title in the first place. They put "hockeytown" at center ice and suddenly it's theirs.... bull!! It wasn't the fans' fault that the North Stars left, and the entire state of Minnesota eats sleeps and breathes hockey. They have great college hockey (so does CO), lots of kids come out of Minnesota to play in the NHL, and the Wild, I'm pretty sure, have sold out every single game they've played at Xcel Energy Center. That's crazy. Minneapolis/St. Paul it is. And I don't think it's really close... Denver is in the top 3 though.

"Which city is greater" is a ridiculous argument from the start because nothing can be proven, it's all opinion. Trying to assert, as a fact, that one city is greater than another is really pointless. What's important to one is not important to another. That's like trying to argue which color is the most beautiful. The very idea that somebody tried to sit down and rank cities is sort of hysterical. The thought of Pierre living with an opinionated Russian dude triggers images of The Odd Couple and some of the worst episodes "The Real World."

Why did you stop at 3?

Good series. The better team won. With any competent management by the owners, the Rockies will be back in the playoffs very soon... but the competent management is the first hurdle. (No "hurdle" pun intended.) Go Rox.

Even if the Rockies beat Lester tonight, which is 50/50 at best, there's no way they'd get through Beckett and Schilling to even tie the series. This series will go 5 at the longest. I guess the pundits were right. The better team is winning right now.

I agree. Having it not run over into the shootout gives players a license to do whatever they please in the waning seconds of overtime without any consequence except maybe spending a few seconds in the box. If a player is in the box at the end of overtime, he should be ineligible to participate in the first 5 rounds of the shootout.

I thought he was talking about Franklin Morales' ERA. 94.50!!!! WOW!!!!

Stealthy: For once we agree entirely on something regarding the schmucks... I mean the Canucks.

This would seem to be the indication. But luckily for me and the Rox, one game isn't the series. Hopefully the Rockies will rebound in game 2. The Rockies have been outpitched. (3 walks with the bases drunk? SERIOUSLY?!!!) The Rockies have been outhit. The Rockies have failed to get key outs, especially with two out. The Rockies defense has not been at its best. The Rockies have gotten out-managed. It' the bottom of 6 as I write this, and I'm already looking ahead to game 2, hopefully the Rockies are doing the same. All of the Red Sox supporters have been exactly right in game 1. I've got no excuse or defense for this one. Go Rockies.

lol. I've got such an inferiority complex about this series, it's scary.

I'll let you all make the call yourselves. Today, in Denver, it's 68 F (20 C), and 22% humidity. The humidor is kept at a steady 70 F (21 C), and 50% humidity. Unfair advantage? I think not. It's been exaggerated. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl...ors_N.htm?csp=1

C'mon... are you seriously saying this? Wake up.... it's ok... it's sunny out!! It snowed once on sunday. Maybe 2 inches accumulated in the shade, none accumulated on the streets. Here's what you (and most others) don't understand about Colorado. - I am sitting in my apt., 10 minutes from downtown Denver, and it is (at 12:26 p.m. on Wednesday) 68 degrees fahrenheit (20 C) and sunny right now. - There is not a shred of snow on the ground anywhere within 5 miles of Coors Field. Colorado's weather is prone to these extreme variation thanks to the mountains. - There are more sunny days here than anywhere else in the country not called California. (200 - 250 days of sun a year.) - Unlike the midwest and the east coast, when it snows in Colorado, it doesn't stick around for a long time. It melts and evaporates. (Right now, the humidity in Denver is 22%, while it's 83% in Boston.) In Ohio or Michigan or Boston, if it snows on sunday, the snow stays on the ground, turns all balck and gray and nasty, and 2 weeks later it finally goes away. Not so in Colorado. It is beautiful here this week, and there is no snow in the forecast for games 3, 4, or 5. Nor is there any hanging around. So, the Sox can pack their snowshoes and practice at.... the Fleet Center? (Where do the Bruins play now?), but it won't do them much good. They should be looking for the sunshine and mild weather. (Turns out the selective vision goes full circle, as it appears more likely that the lousy weather will be in Boston. But it's okay, the Rockies will bring their rain gear and rubber boots. Maybe they should practice at the Olympic Size pool down here at Denver University.)

The Triumph of the Purple and Black. A diatribe on why the Rockies can win the world series. Disclaimer: I am a Rockies fan. Even when I was living in Michigan and Ohio, I managed to get out to a few games a year over summer vacations etc... With that in mind, I make no claim to be perfectly neutral. However, there are several compelling reasons why the Rockies are at least a slight underdog, and at most a slight favorite to win the World Series. Here are simply some reasons that the Rockies are probably better than you think, and why they have a very substantial chance to take the whole thing. 1.) The East Coast Bias (U.S. I don't know anything about Canada): In the days after the Yankees were eliminated from the playoffs, the most pervasive baseball story from any media outlet wasn't the Cleveland-Boston series, it wasn't the Rockies, who had not and have not lost a game in this post-season, it was the job status of former Yankees manager Joe Torre. Granted, Torre was a compelling story, the coverage of the Yankess was overwhelming. ESPN, Fox, Yahoo!, CBS, and their cohorts love stories about the east coast (New York and Boston specifically) because some of these companies are headquartered on the east coast (ESPN in Bristol, CT), and are, at least on some level, fans of the teams that are near them. I suppose this is understndable, but its obnoxious. Just like most local sports stations, the national media have a rooting interest in east coast teams, and no other team outside of the east coast or L.A. enjoys the coverage-by-default that the Yankees, Patriots, and Red Sox enjoy. If you're a sports team outside of the east coast, especially in Denver, 600 miles from the nearest major metropolitan area, attention and respect from national media outlets must be earned; it is held jealously, and rarely given. For further evidence of this phenomenon, log onto Rob Neyer's chat on the ESPN game cast during any Rockies game. 75% of the chat has to do with teams that play in the Eastern Time Zone. I am aware that there are more people in and around New York, and it is a world-wide cultural center, but that does not justify the lack of attention and respect that is given to sports teams outside of the New England/New York area, especially when they earn and deserve it. ESPN, CBS, Yahoo!, and the like will never pick the Rockies to be a favorite over one of their hometown teams, so don't be surprised that every close call is resolved in favor of the Red Sox. 2.) The Rockies have maybe one household name: The Red Sox are an easy pick. We all know them. "Manny being Manny," "Big Papi," "The Green Monster," "the bloody sock," "Dice-k," "Tek," Jonathan "I'm more obnoxious than Eric Byrnes if you can believe it" Papelbon, and a grown man named "Coco." These are all things that even a casual sports fan is aware of. These are all people who are on the highlight reels and the headlines every day (see #1 above). The only player that might even come close to this kind of status for the Rockies is Todd Helton, formerly of "Todd and the toddlers" fame. Few people have the same recognition of Matt Holliday, Troy Tulowitzki, Brad Hawpe, and Garrett Atkins. As a result, quite reasoably, it's easier for the general public to root for Boston. We've all seen Ortiz's helmet flip or Manny's piss break in the green monster or Schill's bloody sock. For the casual baseball fan in Sarasota, Fla. or Olympia, WA, it's easy to go with the Red Sox... they know the Red Sox. The casual fan outside of Denver hasn't seen Brad Hawpe's impressively large nose, Troy Tulowitzki's infinite range or cannon arm, or the jubilant passion of Todd Helton. The casual fan hasn't seen Yorvit Torrealba's expert handling of a young pitching staff. Nor have they seen the young pitching staff. Ubaldo Jimenez? Manuel Corpas? Franklin Morales? The Rockies are easy to pass over because many of the players are unfamiliar. But look out. There's an MVP candidate (Holliday), a rookie of the year candidate (Tulo), and two potential gold gloves (Helton and Tulo.) Together, these anonymous guys are a championship caliber team. Just ask Cole Hamels, Brandon Webb, Chris Young, or Trevor Hoffman. These anonymous names are on the rise, and they have the skill and momentum to make the Red Sox yesterday's news. 3.) Momentum: Momentum is perhaps the most over-rated phenomenon in sports. But for what it's worth, the Rockies might have more mid-october momentum than any team to ever come before them. By the time the '78 Reds got to 7-0 in the playoffs, they were done. No more momentum. The Red Sox have some on their side, coming from behind 3-1 against the Indians and all, but the Rockies have been playing must win games (and winning all but one of them) since mid-september. If momentum is a big factor, and its an elusive creature, the Rockies have almost all of it... for what it's worth. 7-0 in the playoffs, and 21 of 22 is unheard of. Momentum cuts in favor of the Rockies. 4.) The Rockies have kept active: The last team to have a break of 6 days or more (the Tigers last year), was flat in the World Series. However, the two teams before them ('04 White Sox and '95 Braves) with similar rest won the World Series. No other teams in the Wild Card era have had similar breaks. What can we gather? Well... nothing. History doesn't pull one way or the other, but might lean in favor of the Rockies. The rest may have a positive or negative effect on the Rockies. Perhaps the most vulnerable aspect of their game will be the hitters' timing, but the Rockies have demonstrated more patience at the plate than any other NL team not playing in Citizen's Bank Park (the Phillies), so the chance of the Rockies having a difficult time catching up to live playoff pitching is at least reduced. The Rockies have played simulated games and been on the field consistently, making sure that each player avoids too much rest. In doing so, the Rockies have done their best to minimize the rust of an 8-day layoff. I'm not saying it will have no negative effect, it might, but the Rockies have done everything in their power to keep the rust to a minimum. A fully rested (if not over-rested on 6 days rest) Josh Beckett will take any trace of rust and have a party with it. Any rust will be shown early, but the Rockies have made all the right moves to stay sharp and avoid any rust at all. 5.) Speed kills: Willy Taveras and Kaz Matsui are probably the quickest 1-2 duo who don't wear royal blue (Mets and Dodgers). Willy Taveras had way more infield hits than any other player, and he played in less than 100 games. Kaz Matsui has been a playoff hulk, with a back-breaking grand slam against the Phils and showing aptitude in the leadoff role before Taveras returned. The top of the Rockies lineup presents a problem for opposing pitching right from the start. If either gets to first, they're likely to make it to second, and neither is an easy out on the base paths. Run manufacturing is never easier than when you have speed aboard the bases and Holliday or Helton at the dish. The Blake Street Bombers are a distant memory, and the Rockies lineup allows for small ball to be very effective. The Oakland A's and Art Howe are wondering what they were missing. Maybe it was too much Eric Byrnes and not enough speed at the top of the lineup (no disrespect Ricky Henderson, but you're older than baseball itself.) 6.) Home Field Advantage: Nobody in the national media has a rational understanding of Coors Field. Somehow, according to ESPN (specifically Steve Phillips), the light, thin, almost non-existent air helps Rockies hitters (and potentially prevents Holliday from being MVP), but the humidor is to blame for the Rockies improved pitching. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either the light air helps all batters and hurts all pitchers, or the humidor has the reverse effect. The real deal is that the thin air of altitude has very little effect on how baseball is played. At the same time, the humidor has made the Coors Field game more like the game at any other ballpak in MLB. What's more, the national media loves to ignore the fact that Coors Field is the deepest ballpark in the major leagues, and the park that surrendered the most home runs this season was Jimmy Rollins home field, Citizen's Bank Park. The playing field is perfectly level at Coors. The humidor and the deep outfield account for the slight effect that the light air has. Now, why is this section called "home field advantage?" Because Coors Field has a spacious outfield, and Fenway does not. Because Fenway has a giant wall in left field, and Coors Field does not. Manny Ramirez (and Kevin Youkilis, if he's placed in RF) will have no easy time covering all of that ground in the outfield that Holliday, Taveras, and Hawpe are so used to covering. Getting to all of the fly balls in left at fenway is double-A defense compared to covering the spacious ground at Coors. Now, playing the bounces off the monster is an art-form by itself, but it's a lot easier to hit a triple in the corner at Coors over Manny than it is to hit a triple that bounces off the monster over Hollidays head and bounces most of the way back to the infield. Less is more if you're Man-Ram. What's more, the Rockeis will not be star struck by Fenway or intimidated by the fans breathing down their necks, as they were there in June, and dealt with the touristy stuff (and took 2 of 3, outscoring the Sox 20-5 in the series.) 6.5) Home Field Advantage (caused by the American League): Perhaps the most compelling home-field advantage is that the AL pitchers have to hit in Coors Field. Putting these guys at the plate is 3-4 very easy outs for the Rockies, even easier than NL pitchers, which are mostly easy outs. Not to mention that the Rockies at Fenway will be able to plug the only hole in their lineup 1-9. Some of the Sox pitchers have hitting experience, but not enough to not be dead in the water. The Rockies pitchers have been hitting all year, so they can deal with the added physical demands, and are not as easy outs as the AL pitchers. 7.) The Rockies Pound Right Handed Pitching: Before Wakefield was lopped off the roster, there was no lefty starter in the Boston rotation. Brad Hawpe, Kaz Matsui (despite being a switch hitter), and Todd Helton all struggle against lefties. The lack of them on Boston's starting staff or in the bullpen plays in the Rockies' favor. The righties are still intimidating, no doubt. However, the fact that they are not intimidating lefties is an advantage for the Rockies' hitters. Wakefield may have been the second most intimidating pitcher in that rotation for the Rockies because... 8.) The Red Sox Rotation is More Bark than Bite: Josh Beckett might be the best AL pitcher, especially in October. He's all bite. No doubt. But the Rockies have beaten him once, so it's possible. Not likely, but possible. As for the rest: serviceable. Schilling is not the dominating force he once was. He has to paint corners and get calls to be dominant now. He used to be able to get by on pure skill. As he has gotten older, his dominance has faded. The Rockies beat him back in June too, so confidence will not be an issue. Dice-K is inconsistent on the best days. He won game 7 against Cleveland because of a Cleveland power outage that started in game 5, and an offensive onslaught thanks to his offense. This Lester guy is the only lefty, so that cuts in his favor, but he is nothing more than the Rockies have seen (and beaten) in the past month. He may be a fine pitcher, but it takes more than a fine pitcher to beat these Rockies. See the list of pitchers in #2. 9.) The Rockies Pitching Staff is More Bite than Bark: Like I said earlier, nobody's heard of these pitchers. Nobody on ESPN will tell you about them. Nobody will give them credit. Francis won 17 games, and is one of the best leftied in the NL (look out Papi). The British Columbia native has outdueled Brandon Webb, Chris Young, and others. Ubaldo Jimenez can throw the ball 98 mph with movement into the 6th and 7th innings... that's all I need to say about him. Josh Fogg's nickname is Dragon Slayer because of some of the great pitchers he has dueled with and beaten. In all fairness, Fogg has some control issues, and is no more intimidating than Schilling or Dice-K or Lester. The guy just finds ways to win. Aaron Cook is a total question mark... that's just how that is. Herges and Franklin Morales are good for middle relief, providing both a righty and lefty threat, and Fuentes (another lefty) is a decent setup man, while Corpas has been lights out, with only 1 exception over the last 22 games. The pen may not be as good as the Sox's, but they're no laughing matter. They aren't the Phillies' pen, after all. Nobody has heard of these guys, but it's not because they can't compete, it's because they're young. They aren't the big names, that's for sure. 10.) Defense wins championships: Somehow, this has managed to elude everyone, but this Rockies team, the '07 Colorado Rockies, are the best defensive team in the history of baseball. Not the best in the NL, not the best in the majors this year, but the best in MLB ever. I'll repeat that: The greatest defensive team in MLB history. The outfielders get good reads on fly-balls, the in-field's only limitations are Torrealba's slow move to catch potential stolen bases, and Atkin's slightly limited range. The old saying goes that "defense wins championships," and these Rockies have the BEST... DEFENSE... EVER. This team will not beat itself, and as a result, it will be much more difficult for the Red Sox to do so. The Cleveland Indians threw at least one game out the window with defensive ineptitude. The Rockies cannot be relied upon to do the same. What does this mean? The Rockies have all the ingredients. They have an awesome 1-2 punch, a frightening heart of the order, and 7-9 hitters who have proven their quality in the clutch (Seth Smith's RBI double in game 4 against the D-backs was hit in the 9 hole). The pitching is top-rate, but doesn't get top billing because of their geographical location. The Red Sox have the tradition and the names that have gotten more mentions on Sportscenter. The tradition the Rockies have is beating the Red Sox 2 out of 3, with the lone loss coming to now-irrelevant Tim Wakefield. This is not to take anything at all away from the Boston Red Sox. The BoSox may very well still be the favorite in this series (their regular season record is the strongest indicator), but the Rockies are no welcome mat. The Rockies have a very legitimate chance to win this series, and given recent history, it would be foolish to think that the Red Sox will tear through the Rockies like the Rockies are the Indians with a 2 game series lead. Rockies in 6. At an hour and a half, this is the longest I have ever spent authoring an HW post. I'm tired. Good night. Go Rockies!!!!! (Jets is a double-dipping, Colorado/Boston tweener bum!!! The sound of his sobbing after the total destruction of the Red Sox will be musical to me!) I'm kidding, Jets knows it. Don't go KoZed on my a$$ and ban me. lol. .......... Kidding again.

I'm going to the game saturday night at Coors Field!! Rockies in 6.

Turns out that Theo-Aebi trade was a lose lose.

Fair enough. Rheaume played for the Lightning. Preseason. That's a "league game." I'm not sure if you're referring to me as junior or suggesting that she played in juniors. The previous would be awkward, the latter would be inaccurate.

That most hated layer list is pretty right on. One athlete I'd add is Michelle Wie (around 9 or 10). Never won anything and got that sense of entitlement bad attitude at all the wrong times. Does this make coherent sense to anyone? DH.....dumb hockey. [Great story... compelling and rich.] Too many goons. [Probably wrong, not even 1 per team, with the exception of Philly.] Gotten worse every year. [Wrong, fighting stats bear that out... unless "every year" means "since last year."] "Back in my time." [You're 17 (says you in your profile), and your demeanor and grasp on grammar support that notion. Nothing is more annoying than pretnetiousness.] Rid of most cdn franchises. [i'm guessing the english translation of this chickenscratch would be: "Get rid of most of the Canadian franchises." WHY would the NHL move out of Canada? Especially now that the Canadian dollar is stronger than the U.S.] "Rid of the watered down teams." [Which teams are watered down? You tell me. Which owner and GM are out there saying, "Gee, our talent is too concentrated, we need to pick up lousy players to dilute our team's talent pool. And NO, rebuilding doesn't count.] "When I was young, I played in the NHL." [...huh?!] mind you it was just an exhibition [i still don't believe you're over 17.] they will probably never let women play in a league game. [Wrong, Manon Rheaume, Sept. 23, 1992]

Hartley is a fine coach, but I detect a bit of a lack of creativity out of him. He seems to hav a shelf life of about 3 years and change. I'm willing to bet that players stop listening to him after a while, and he doesn't have what it takes to regain their attention. He was fired from Colorado in the midsts of a losing streak as well.