Brush with Greatness

Do you mean "jumping to conclusions" as in "I'm a fan of the guy and the actual cause of death was a rare liver disease so there's no way he's on 'roids."? Because surely you can't mean taking a look at the facts of the situation and making an eduated assumption based on said facts. It's like Logic 101. a) Steroids have known side effects such as causing liver diseases. b) Walter Payton died of a liver disease. Now just taking into account A and B and saying Walter Payton took performance enhancing drugs would likely be jumping to conclusions. However, combined that with the fact that not only was it the prime era of steroid use in the NFL but also that industry experts themselves have speculated on drug use by Payton and I think the term "educated conclusion" is a better phrase.

Well, obviously it has nothing to do with Canada. Sweden didn't seem to fare too badly against Germany though. And on a side note, the Americans really appeared to struggle with the Swiss, who Canada toyed with in a 5-0 victory. My biggest fear is that we (Canada) will have to face the second best team in the tournament in the semis (that being the Russians). America beat the Russkies, but Russia are typically slow starters and don't start to really pull their shit together until it starts to mean something. Back to Canada's defense, I fail to understand how you sell them short. This may actually be the best defense that we have ever iced at a World Junior tournament. I'm not basing this on the two games so far, but rather on the two games, two exhitions, intersquad and university exhibition game, along with two practises that I've taken in. The squad is comparable to the 2001 group in that it has a lot of returning guys and is high quality but as a whole is better. The only defense that I can think would compare with these guys to my memory is the '96 group. Admittedly, '95 was more star studded and went on to better things but that '96 group were awesome in the tourney. The defence this year compared to last year is light years apart. Phaneuf, Coburn, Belle and Seabrook (when he gets fully healthy) are all a year older and much improved. Last year they had Gorges, Klein and Meech. This year its Weber, Barker and Syvret. Weber is a better D than Meech (although Meech was really good at this level). Gorges was a solid 6th D, but overall Barker and Syvret are far better than Gorges and Klein.

Regarding Walter Payton, I must admit that my assumptions were crazy of me because as we all know, steroids have never been associated with liver problems(?). How fucking naive are you people? I'm not going to argue with the fact that he had a rare liver condition, but there is a strong liklihood that it either A) was spurned in part by or b) accelerated by the use of steroids. The mid 70's to mid 80's was known as the "golden age of steroids" in the NFL according to documentarian Eric Marciano. And I'm supposed to believe that Mr. Clean Walter Payton excelled above and beyond all these juiced up athletes, only to coincidentally perish at a young age due to liver problems. And just to prove that I'm not the only one, I'll quote former Olympian and Olympic coach Pat Connelly (who may have a better idea than Joe "I love Sweetness" Fanboy), "For every person who knows about steroids or has used them," she says, "the first thought that passed through our minds when we heard of Walter's liver problem was that it might be steroid-related." It's amazing how biased people are today in throwing (or not throwing) out steroid claims when it comes to athletes they like or dislike. "Barry Bonds, he's an asshole, so he's on roids for sure. Sweetness? No way, clean as a whistle. He just trained harder than anyone." Denying Walter Payton was on 'roids is like trying to deny that Carl Lewis was ever juiced up. In regards to the '88 Olympics, the only thing Ben Johnson did that the others sprinters didn't was get caught. And just to prove that there is no Canadian bias, I'll go ahead and say that I think Donovan Bailey, along with pretty much 95% of sprinters over the last 25 years, have been taking mostly undetectable performance enhancing drugs. Denying is being uneducated, naive, or both.

You seriously contend that there is a better defensive pair in the tournament than Phaneuf and Weber? Just out of curiousity, who might they be. Actually attending the Finland and Swiss games and watching the way these two control the ice was amazing. Phaneuf-Meech last year were excellent but they had the benefit of being teammates in Red Deer. Phaneuf-Weber are every bit as good and the next few games will just show that.

Oh, give me a break guys. The defense isn't suspect at all. Phaneuf-Weber is by far the best D pairing in the tourney. Coburn-Belle are right up there as well. The problem is that Syvret and Barker are both too offensively oriented to be playing together (don't remember if they were playing together yesterday or not). However, once Seabrook is back, that should shore things up nicely. Seabrook should take Barker's spot alongside Syvret and Barker can be dropped back to a 7th D/powerplay specialist. By far, Canada's boys are the best defensive unit in the tourney. When it comes down to crunch time, Phaneuf-Weber are going to be out there pretty much every other shift and we have nothing to worry about. Admittedlly, they did look somewhat nervous at times. The discipline (as far as defensive minded not penalty wise) wasn't there yesterday that they showed in the Winnipeg games, but I think the fact that this was the first game that actually "meant something" had a lot to do with that. You can bet the coaches will have the D more settled for Sweden's game and things should be a lot tighter. Glass also looked shaky. Some of that may have been nerves as well though. Even though I think Beauchemin is his equal, Sutter is doing the right thing by coming back with Glass tomorrow. A switch would really hurt Glass' confidence and burn him for the tournament. I can't believe its just over a week away before I head down to Grand Forks for the gold medal game. So pumped.

Oh, for sure I thought steroids right away and still do. Same goes with Sweetness. Can anyone seriously believe that Walter Payton wasn't on the juice? Another one there is Flo-Jo (at least I think it's FloJo, always get her and Jackie Joyner mixed up). All these elite athletes from the eighties/nineties dying at young ages with heart problems. I'm not saying all of them were doped up, but if you don't at least concede that a number of them are, then you are fooling yourself.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are these numerous experts the same ones that you said were predicting that Stephen Dixon would not make the team, because if they are that marks two times they (and you) are wrong. Stephen Dixon is on the team again and (like I correctly predicted earlier) there are two QMJHL'ers on the team. I don't see how it's creating confrontation by telling you that you don't know shit, and then being proven correct. You said he wouldn't take anyone but Crosby, I said he would take Crosby and Dixon. You were wrong, I was right. Give it up. And again I don't know what this has to do with Sutter. Is the team more tailored to his coaching style? Certainly. However, the quality coming out of Quebec was much less talented and no matter who the coach, I don't think there would have been any more Quebecer's. Again, if you would actually take the time to read my post's, you would see me referencing last year were Quebec resident Mario Durocher was the coach. He took Crosby, Dixon, NHLer (at the time) Marc - Andre Fleury and Maxime Talbot. Four Quebec/QMJHL guys. This year Sutter took Crosby, Dixon, and NHL/AHLer Bergeron. Three QMJHL/Quebec guys. Not a big difference especially considering the quality elsewhere this year.

No real surprises. After taking in much of the camp, including the intersquad and the first U of M v. Canada game... G Beauchemin deserves to be there as does Glass. Dubnyk had a few good games but the big guy just can't handle the puck. Nastiuk played his way off the team with some weak goals. Only dissapointing part was that neither of these goalies really played their way onto the team, but rather that the other two simply cut themselves. D Mike Green/Shea Weber/Danny Syvret was pretty much a crap shoot for me as far as 6 and 7 D were concerned. Green really struggled in the intersquad (him and Quincy were the worst two D-men by far that game) and just couldn't recover. His performance the next night was miles better but his fate was set. The only real surprise on D was Kyle Quincy. I would argue that he was the worst D man in camp from everything I saw. People whom I talked to that watched the Wednesday game agreed. No idea why he is there. Of course, I figure he will be gone yet before the tournament once Seabrook gets healthy but only time will tell. F You knew going in that Eric Fehr and Corey Perry were pretty much fighting for a spot and that the team wasn't going to take both guys and despite Fehr being the better skater, Perry's numbers in this camp were better. The top 9 forwards and Sutter's boy Fraser were no surprise. That just left the three spots, including the aformentioned designated Perry/Fehr spot. I can't really argue with MacCurther selection. Having not seen much of him before, I was really impressed. MacCarthur is one of those guys that could potentially go from a scorer with his team to a solid checker at the WJC. Was sort of hoping they would keep Stone around as the MacCarthur-Stone-Getzlaf line on Tuesday was dominant. Andrew Ladd didn't show anything that a 4th overall pick should but he blended in and no one else stood out so I guess he got his number pulled. Was dissapointed that Brule did not even receive an invite as I contend that his style would have made for a great 13th forward, but Sutter really wanted his 85's. As for the games, Jeff Carter was clearly the best player on the ice the first game I saw, with Crosby showing flashes of brilliance, while Ryan Getzlaf to me dominated on night two, despite not scoring any goals. My re-adjusted line predictions. G Jeff Glass Rejean Beauchemin -I believe Glass has been declared the starter but I could definetly see these two splitting round robin duty and Sutter simply going with the hot hand in the elimination rounds D Phaneuf - Weber Syvret - Coburn Seabrook - Belle Barker -this is assuming Seabrook comes back healthy. I took this opportunity to cut Quincy. Barker and Syvret are some what interchangeable and I could see Syvret falling back to 7th and being used as a P.P. specialist circa Ian White in 2003. F Stewart-Richards-Dawes Crosby-Bergeron-Perry Getzlaf - Carter - Ladd (although I would suggest MacCarthur, I see them sticking Ladd here, only other possibility is Colliton) Dixon - Colliton - MacCarthur/Fraser I'll predict that Mike Richards gets the "C" with Phaneuf and Carter getting the "A"'s. Anyways, just over two week 'til I make the trip to Grand Forks for the finals (naturally I'm banking on Canada being there).

I contend that the Knights will not win both the OHL and the Memorial Cup. Now if it was a regular year I would say simply that they would just not win the OHL thus not qualifying for the Cup. However, since they're hosting they get two cracks at it. As it is, my prediction is that they lose out in the OHL semi-finals, only to be real rested for the Memorial Cup on home ice, which they will win (as is often the case with the host).

DJ Danger Mouse - The Grey Album (at least I think it was '04)

No way would I say Dixon is on the outside looking in. Is he a lock? No. However, Sutter and Co. are not going to simply take the best offensive 13 forwards (in which case guys like Brule, Perry and Fehr would be on the team without a doubt) but rather take a mixture of different skill sets. Dixon is very strong in a checking role and should fill that again this year. Especially now that Kyle Chipchura is likely out (which really sucks because he would have been one of Canada's best defensive forwards) the list of guys to fill those roles is shorter. Jeremy Colliton will probably be back in one of those roles and any combination of Ryan Stone, Clarke MacCarthur and Colin Fraser for the other two spots (assuming the 13th forward spot goes to a utility guy). However, there is potential to pair Stone and Fehr together. Here's my mock team as of right now, which I admit is heavily biased to the guys I've seen more of, primarily the WHLer's (will probably change a bit after the selection camp roster has been released and I've had a chance to watch a bit of the selection camp) G (the toughest and most debatable position) Kevin Nastiuk Rejean Beachium D Dion Phaneuf - Mike Green Shawn Belle- Braydon Coburn Brent Seabrook - Cam Barker Shea Weber F Richards-Dawes-Stewart Getzlaf-Carter-Bergeron Stone-Crosby-Fehr Dixon-Colliton-Fraser Brule Damn would that group of fowards look good with Horton and Chipchura

Rsshh, once again makes himself look like an idiot by talking out of his ass. A few things... Sutter. Being coached by a Sutter. Totally different than being coached by a Suter. Also, Crosby is not a Quebec born player. You're probably right in saying that there will be only one Quebecer on the team (that being of course Patrice Bergeron) but that's not solely because Brent Sutter is coaching the team. The team is picked by all three coaches (one representing each league) as well as head scout Blair MacKasey (who is primarily, along with Sutter, responsible for the selection camp roster). Fact is that there has been very little talent coming out of Quebec lately. If you were referencing the fact that Crosby would be the lone QMJHL player, then you're likely incorrect again as Stephen Dixon has a decent shot at returning in a checking role. In all likelihood, the only Quebecer's getting invited to camp (on top of Bergeron) are Steve Bernier and Alexandre Picard up front (unless the concussion scares people off Picard) and possibly Alex Picard (different guy) on the point. Again, I don't know where the assumption that Sutter's involvement has anything to do with a lack of Quebec players comes from. Last year Mario Durocher (a Quebecer and QMJHL coach) was head coach of the junior team and the team only included 2 Quebec born players, one of which was Marc-Andre Fleury. The team itself only had 3 QMJHL'ers, Maxime Talbot and the aformentioned Crosby and Dixon. As for the goaltending situation, it is indeed the first time since 1995, when Storr and Cloutier split the duties, that there has been no Quebec league goaltender. Considering we haven't won gold since 1996 I'm not certain that this is a terrible thing. The so called clutch goaltending that the QMJHL goalies are supposed to provide hasn't been there. Sure, Luongo in 99 and Fleury in 03 where both superb, but weak performances by Fleury last year as well as Maxime Ouellet and Pascal Leclaire in the past has diminished by confidence in the Q goalies. Either way I will be there live at the final game (first time since '99 - stupid Russians) and Canada damn well better be in it. I'm hoping to either get the Yanks or Ruskies in the final. Should be one hell of a time.

Not really. The camp is so deep that they won't be missed. I guess it was a slow news day for TSN then, as it was the main story on their website all day. I think they'll miss Burns more than Horton though. No chance that they will miss Burns more than Horton. I would think this year Burns would only have an outside chance at making the team. If you put Burns on D (where Minnesota has him playing this year and would want him to play if they released him to the junior nats) then he would not make the team. The big 4 returning (Belle, Coburn, Seabrook, Phaneuf) combined with the likes of Cam Barker and Mike Green (who in all likelihood will round out the top 6) and potentially Shea Weber, there is not a spot for Burns on the point. Up front there is a little better possibility, but when you consider that you bring back the top line of Dawes-Stewart-Richards as well as the Getzlaf-Carter pair and add in Sydney Crosby and Stephen Dixon (who is another returning guy that could be in tough) you've got a good nucleus of forwards. That isn't even counting Patrice Bergeron. Now if Nathan Horton (who is a much better player than Burns) was to be released, then there would only be a few spots open for Burns. But Canada will miss Horton.

I can see where Cherry would merit consideration from alot of people. Because "greatest" is so vague, and there was no real definition, it was very much open to interpretation. How many people are prouder to be Canadian than Cherry? Cherry is an admirable supporter of Canada and probably the one person many people associate with patriotism in Canada, as much as anyone. However, my pick would be Terry Fox. There are few human beings in history who were more courageous or inspirational then Fox. The man ran a marathon a day on one leg. Watching the Terry Fox episode actually brought a tear to my eye. For all I know (and I'm not saying this is true) but a guy like Alexander Graham Bell could have been a jerk. What I'm getting at, is that for alot of these guys their accomplishments, discoveries, etc., no matter how amazing there are, are merely accomplishments. But with Terry, it was the spirit inside the person that made him great. Like Gord Downie said, "Terry's gift is forever green."

Requeim for a Dream Disturbing and disgusting This movie should be showed in schools as part of a drug prevention program.

Mathnet was better.

A few quotes from Rsssh So, I'm somewhat unclear on your stance here. So the NHL is a money making business and the NHL and anyone else who says otherwise if full of shit? Yet no one (except apperently you) is saying that there haven't been huge losses? And as for the rollback, as Canadian Chris pointed out, it's obvious your not reading anyone else's posts because it has been stated many times that a salary rollback is a short term fix. Sure, it will drop salaries for the moment but they will just grow back up to where they were. Let's take a look at a few more numbers here. Total salary paid out last year was approximately 1.3166 billion. A 10% rollback on that only comes to a little over 130 million. I wonder where the players are getting this extra 20 million from? Rsshh, do you just blindly listen to everything the P.A. spews or do you bother to check some of the facts. On top this, that rollback would save each team (mind you this is only a one-time saving) approximately only 4.3 million for next season. So, going by the Forbes stats (because they are the only ones you will believe), most teams, with the NHLPA's rollback suggestion stand to only break even next year before proceeding to lose money in the years after that. Hey, that's a great plan to fix the game.

Even going by the Forbes account which is like a best case scenario for the NHLPA and their supporters, the NHL has lost OVER $200 MILLION DOLLARS (!!!!) the past two seasons. So even if the NHL and Levitt are full of shit, as you say, they are still losing assloads of money no matter whose proclamations they are and this is apparently something you are failing to see. Will you please go away? As an aside, how can the losses have dropped so dramatically in the Forbes report from 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 when a) attendance figures decreased (always a great sign in pro sports particularly when it's the second straight year) and b) salaries increased and c) ticket prices stayed the same? The best part about the past few years was that the T.V. contract actually generated $120 million per season in rights fees whereas as the new one is worth, um... ZERO. Now, here is another thing that is the NHL's fault but not disputable. Starting around 1998, expansion was used to artificially elevate team revenues and the teams took this money and spent it on players accordingly. At 80 million a pop (distributed around the current teams), and four teams joining in a three year span, this turned into over 10 million each for the current teams. That 10 million was then spent on signing players (or in some cases merely surviving). However, that $320 million extra that teams spent was not based off revenue but rather gains (accountitatively speaking). Approximately, $300 million was spent driving up the market value of the players but the money has since dried up. So again, with a little bit of thinking, how one can dispute the massive losses is beyond me.

Now, I don't know about you, but even if I own two different teams (for two different sports) and only one sports team makes a profit and one doesn't. It means one team is making money and another isn't. It isn't a collective sum of the money pooled together by one team. Both teams are considered a seperate entity are they not? Hence the team still isn't making money. Even if the guy financing the team IS making money, he's making it from outside revenues that aren't associated with the team (which would be the other team). Here is the article from Forbes' Magazine. I suggest bugmenot.com to bypass the registration process after page one. A few quotes... An Interview with Levitt Again, I ask, what good does it do the reputation of an independent auditor if these numbers are false? Sure, one company is paying him to do the audit, but if you think that "doctoring" the results of one report to appease your temporary employer is a lot more important than an auditor's reputation you have a lot to learn about the business world.

Those figures are Canadian and the team was valued at $125 American recently. Since John McCaw took over in 1996 the team has lost about $90 million dollars collectively. However, thanks to Brian Burke (possibly the best G.M. in the league over the last few seasons - everyone should give his thoughts on the lockout a look) the team has made about $50 million the past two seasons (both figures Canadian dollars again) which helps offset the massive previous debt as well as making the team a viable investment for a new owner. Remember, even though the league is losing massive amounts of money as a whole, not every team loses money. So as it is, what moron would pass up an opportunity to purchase a team that is making money in an environment that does not have cost certainty especially when there is potential for cost certainty in the future? Brian Burke's Solution Without a doubt the best suggestions I have read. Now tell me exactly what is wrong with such a proposal.

Correct, in the fact that the NHL isn't willing to turn the financial records fully over to the players and go, do as you may, because, like Forbes has done, the numbers can be interpreted many ways and the NHLPA would likely draw their own conclusions on what counts as revenue and expenses to skew the numbers in their favour to try to draw public support. However, the NHL has offered on many occasions to go over the books collectively with the PA and the PA has refused.

Wow! That's awesome. So fucking awesome. I think I am more excited about this than Seinfeld. The first junior high season is probably the least interesting (was never a big Voula fan) of any of the Degrassi Jr. High/Degrassi High seasons but it's still solid. But it does have Stephanie Kay. And "Best Laid Plans" is an awesome ep.

The latter. The NHL is a hurt business right now. But from my experience, when a business cuts costs, they may improve their bottom line, but they are doing little to improve the overall health of their establishment. They need to worry about improving themselves on the revenue end. Cutting expenses may help in the short term, but not in the long run. Not that the players should not make any concessions. Just remember the owners have a vested interest in making conditions appear as dire as possible. Then what is the problem with a fluctuating cap? Opposition of a fixed cap is one thing, because it limits the players upside, but a fluctuating cap based on the revenue generated the previous season is not simply a "short term" fix. It also negates the players argument that "they just want to be along for the ride" when things get going good or that "they just get their fair piece of the pie". The players offer, including a one time 10% salary rollback? That's a quick fix. It's the owners who are actually looking long term here. If you want to talk about generating revenue, you need to just look at the uncompeteable marketplace. Small market teams can't match the big 10 million dollar salaries of a "free market system". Sure, theoretically, a team has a right to a player until he is 30, but whether that team can actually afford to sign him within their market constraints is another matter. Simply put (and how many times has this been the case especially with a team like the Oilers for example) the team is forced to trade the guy while he is just hitting his prime. This occurs before free agency kicks in, simply because the team cannot afford to pay him "market value", which is asinine considering that market value is determined by about 15% of the teams in the league, yet all teams must abide by it. Or the rare times where a team coughs up the dough, there are forced to cut corners everywhere else to the point where they are not competitive. As a result, these small market teams fail to make the playoffs, or get there and bow out early, resulting in a loss of potential playoff revenue that they desperately need to survive as ticket revenue is the largest revenue stream in hockey. Is it the owners fault that they are in the position they are in? Without a doubt. But now they want to fix things people are saying "no, you can't". How idiotic is that? These guys made a massive investment to the point where a lot of the teams no longer are valued at their purchase price. You would think as an owner, you would have an opportunity to make money (or make some money back), and if you weren't collectively making money, you would be afforded the opportunity to alter the system so that there was potential to be profitable. As for the Forbes study, I would say take it with a grain of salt. It is based all off of estimates and projections and what Forbes counts as NHL generated revenue and losses is potentially way off. I'm not going to say the Levitt one is spot on, but I would easily consider more accurate than the Forbes one. And it is based on actual figures. When the Levitt report was issued, Levitt stated that the results were, if anything, on the optimistic side. This is a private auditing firm. Yes, the NHL hired them to perform the study, but it is their job to come back with honest numbers. On top of this, Bob Goodenow was afforded the opportunity multiple times before the study was issued publicly to go over it with Levitt and simply refused. Bob Goodenow is a cancer to hockey (not that Bettman is much better). He only looks out for the "superstars" so to speak. That is who a salary cap is going to hurt. You won't have guys making 10 million a season any more. That number will have to be drastically cut, potentially in half. The guys making 500,000 a year aren't going to take a hit. It was the same thing in '94. The guys that saw the massive (and compartively improportionate) increases since then have been the stars and superstars. As an aside, an interesting poll in the Hockey News recently determined that something like 75% of fans would support and watch replacement players. As discussed in the other thread, with the tight confines of the current game, creativity is stifled and players aren't given the chance to shine. Watching more raw players might even be more interesting. There is a hell of a lot of talent out there (Making the Cut has some decent talent - but even a level above that) of guys who would be very interesting to watch. There is a very fine line between a large number of the players in the NHL and players playing elsewhere. In many instances, the players playing elsewhere may even be more skilled but lack other intangibles (size, for instance) that would get them a spot in the current clutch n' grab NHL. Perhaps a forced shift to smaller players would make the games more exciting than they currently are. Players like Brandon Reid or Hnat Domenichelli are amazing hockey players but can't survive in the big man NHL. Other guys like Christian Dube were not really suited to the current NHL style. However, all of there guys are wonderfully talented as displayed by their junior careers or European play. Replacement players in hockey would not simply mean a decline in actual talent levels, as it would in most other sports and in fact, if the right players were taken (which would be very likely because after these guys there is a drop) the games would be even more exciting.

Know we have the Mozilla thread, but thought I would start one for everyones thoughts on Firefox. Is anyone else using it and what are your thoughts?

And one more thing. Why don't they release the original series on DVD? Hell, get View Askew to distribute even. I know I for sure would but it all up.