What if Tom got tired of all the lousy History-will-be-made" commercials? History will be made.

Johan Franzen scores a mediocre goal against Evgeny Nabokov. Miroslav Satan scores on a breakaway. Marc-Andre Fleury makes a save he's made countless times. Kris Versteeg scores a game-winning goal. Mike Cammalleri bats the puck past Fleury. Little Joe comes up big.

All these semi-awesome moments happening in the NHL Playoffs, it's only right that the NHL take a really cool commercial concept and completely destroy it by churning out a new one every time something questionably cool happens in the playoffs, right? They finally do something I like, and just ruin it by overdoing it.

The History commercials were awesome because not only did they feature some of the greatest players to ever lace a pair of skates, but it made me think: what if there were no Greatness? What if Mario was not so Super? What if Patrick Roy really did play like a rookie? What if Bobby did not fly? The Blues could have had another chance to win the 'Cup, that's what!

But personal team-related feelings aside, the NHL really screwed up here. I know it's probably no big deal, but I'm just getting tired of seeing these new commercials. I realize there are more important things we should be worrying about. Like incompetent referees.
Maybe that should be their next commercial: "what if referees didn't take bets before games on who could botch the game the most? History will be made."
Now THAT would be a commercial worth watching!
But in all seriousness, the NHL really needs to stop making these commercials like it's a bodily function. It was cool at first, but I don't want to see another one just because Antti Niemi made a nice save.

Fighting with wrist tape

"Any player or goalkeeper wearing tape or any other material on his hands (below the wrist) who cuts or injures an opponent during an altercation will receive a match penalty in addition to any other penalties imposed including for fighting under this rule."

Does that or does it not make sense? What if you cut your opponent and you have nothing on your hand? No match penalty. But if you have tape below your wrist, then you get it? I would think that if you have anything above the wrist taped, and you cut the other guy, that would call for a match penalty.

In tonight's Blues-Canucks game, Rick Rypien had his wrist/thumb taped because acording to the announcers, he was nursing a minor thumb sprain. He bloodied Cam Janssen in their fight tonight. And he got a match penalty because of his tape. Except for his thumb, which I highly doubt would contribute to cutting your opponent.

Can someone explain to me why wrist tape (or in Rypien's case, thumb tape) is so dangerous in a fight that the NHL had to make a rule for it?

Mehlville HS hockey vs Blues hockey

I find myself in a difficult position, regarding the schedule of the Mehlville High School hockey club.

Up until my senior year, I had no idea any school in the South STL County area even had a hockey program. A portion of Mehlville's halls are lined with trophy cases, crammed with trophies, ribbons, photos, plaques, and other objects to symbolize the accomplishments of our football/baseball/basketball/track/volleyball/swim teams. One floor below, is a smaller case tucked away in a corner that nobody can see, collecting dust for as long as it's been there. This would be the case belonging to the hockey club. That's how much we care about hockey here. As much as I liked it at MHS, the hockey nut in me was brokenhearted that it took me this long to realize we have a team.

Recently, I decided to take action and get our schedule down, and hope to attend some games. Thankfully, much of the games take place at the Kennedy Recreation Complex, very close to where I live. I was happy I'd get to see my old Panthers club play hockey, it would make me feel like I was back in school, cheering the football team on to victory. This was gonna rule!

Unfortunately, there is a situation that I have no control of whatsoever.

The powers that be have scheduled a large portion of Mehlville's games at the same time as (or close enough to) Blues games, the NHL team I follow and love with all my Ruskie-Polack heart. After tonight, there are no more Mehlville HC games until January, the final month of HS hockey. In that month, there are only two games that are not scheduled during Blues games. One on the 7th, the other on the 21st. Out of 9 games that month (five at Kennedy Rec.), there are only two I can attend without worrying about missing any Blues action.
As much as I'd like to attend those 5 games anyway, I don't want to miss any Blues action either. Simply put, I don't know what to do. If there weren't so many MHS games at the same time as Blues games, this wouldn't be as big of a problem.

What to do, what to do... this is where you come in (I hope). I welcome any and all suggestions on what I should do. Be sure to explain why I should do what you suggest. Thanks in advance!

Jersey From The Future, Courtesy Of The NHL

I just got a look at the NHL's new women's Ice Flirt jerseys. I really don't know what the NHL expects us to think about these, but I think the league decided to go with the "jersey from the future" deal.

Seriously, these look like the kind of jerseys Starfleet would use if they took up a hockey program. Every time I see these, I keep thinking of various Star Trek characters taking on teams from throughout the galaxy, wearing these monstrosities, only with the Federation logo on them. I can just imagine Worf finally getting the chance to take out his aggressions on Quark, by violently bodychecking him. Repeatedly. Or Jean-Luc Picard getting kicked out of a game because he kept instigating fights with various players from Team Borg. Rivalry games between Team Klingon and Team Romulan, or Team Borg vs Team Species 8472, Tellarites vs Andorians...

I could go on and on, but I don't want to disturb anyone further with my nerdiness.

Moving on... I hope I'm not offending any women out there who like these jerseys. I think it's an interesting concept on the NHL's part, they're not bad jerseys. Their futuristic flair really amused me at first glance.

They're Called "Defensemen" For A Reason

A while back, NHL.com was running their "30 teams In 30 Days" feature, basically giving a season preview for all 30 teams. I was reading the Pittsburgh Penguins edition, when something caught my eye. They happened to mention the signing of defenceman Jay McKee. That made me upset because he used to be with the St. Louis Blues, my team. He was one of my favourite players all three years he was with us. And now he was gone, miles away, in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater. As if that wasn't bad enough, while analyzing how well he'd do with his new team, they gave him a decent outlook, even though "he'll never win a Norris Trophy."

That really raised my blood pressure. As I was talking about it with my good friend Melina, she kindly pointed out Jay's poor point production may have something to do with it. It was the second time someone suggested his lack of scoring had to do with his release from St. Louis. While watching the news one day, the sports analyst also mentioned McKee's low point totals since joining the Gateway City. This confused me. Defencemen aren't supposed to be big-time goal scorers, they're supposed to stop the puck from entering their net. It's the forwards' jobs to score, not the defencemen's. Not that a d-man scoring is a bad thing. I have no problem with it, but it shouldn't be used to judge them. And barring offensive capabilities, there's no reason Jay McKee (or any other shot-blocking specialist) should be labeled as one who has no chance at even being nominated for a Norris Trophy. But I realized, that is probably exactly the reason McKee was released from St. Louis.

After doing some research, I confirmed it. Several Norris Trophy winners had high goal totals. For example, Bobby Orr. He was either 2nd or 3rd on his team in goals scored 4 out of his 8 years as a Norris winner. Paul Coffey is the highest-scoring Norris Trophy winner of all time, with 48 goals scored (not to mention a +61 rating) in 1986. Rob Blake scored 23 goals in his 1998 Norris year, despite a -3 rating, which is, in my opinion, one of the best ways to determine a defenceman's effectiveness on the ice. The lowest-scoring Norris winner was Rod Langway, notching 3 goals in 1983. The average for goals scored among Norris Trophy winners is 18, which is 6th in overall team scoring.

Jay McKee's +/- rating was a -2 in his first season as a Blue, which rose to +2, then +11 this past season. In my opinion, that's improvement. Goalscoring aside, McKee has accumulated acceptable +/- ratings throughout his NHL career, and he has done a tremendous job of keeping the puck out of the net. He is known throughout the league as one of the best shot blockers today. He may be injury-prone, but he is amazing at what he does. He wasn't named one of the Buffalo Sabres' alternate captains in 2006 for nothing. Despite all he has going for him, whoever wrote NHL.com's Penguins preview still feels he'll never win a Norris Trophy.

It's unfortunate that scoring plays a role in determining how good a defenceman is, not just his skills on defence. If Bobby Orr, Paul Coffey, Dennis Potvin, Al MacInnis, all had not scored as many goals as they had, would they still have won the Norris Trophy? If Drew Doughty would have scored more this past season, would he have had a better chance at winning the Calder Trophy? If Mike Green wouldn't have scored as many goals as he did in 2009, would he have been nominated? I tend to think not. What if Rod Langway would have scored as many goals as Doug Wilson before him? Would he have won more Norris Trophies? With the NHL's unneccessary yet growing (and perceived) dependency on offensively-minded d-men, I tend to believe so. People like Jay McKee and Drew Doughty are great players who are crucial to their teams. They don't score much, but there's no reason that should matter. While goals by a defenceman isn't neccessarily a abd thing (goals are goals, after all), but they should not be a defenceman's primary objective. Instead of judging them based on goalscoring, let's take their primary role more seriously and judge them for what they really are supposed to do: stop the other team from scoring.

Why The Offseason raises My Blood Pressure

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/4350334/blogging-nation

It's been a while since I've written one of these. Oh well, there are a few things concerning the state of the Blues that have made me, well, concerend. I've been getting increasingly worried about my boys in blue lately, and so far very little has happened to ease my mind.

First and foremost, Jay McKee is now a Pittsburgh Penguin. Just thinking about Jay in a 'Pens jersey raises my blood pressure. In the past several years, McKee has been among my favourite defencemen to watch. He is one of the best shot blockers this league has ever seen. There's a reason he was named alternate captain of the Buffalo Sabres during his last season with them. Sure he may be injury-prone (he's suffered a leg infection, knee injury, other various lower-body injuries, and almost had his finger taken off during a shot block), but when he's not injured, he does his job, and does it well. Ever since joining the Blues, his +/- rating has steadily improved, his biggest improvement coming this season, jumping from a +2 to a +11. So what if he was slightly overpaid, he's worth it. Unfortunately, the powers that be sure didn't think so. Bad move.

Since we're on the subject of defencemen, why have the Blues not re-signed Roman Polak yet? Our defence situation is rocky to say the least. Brewer might come back next season, but that's a pretty big "maybe." McKee is Pittsburgh-bound. Pietrangelo might... MIGHT... make the squad. Cole is staying in college for one more year. Peluso still has a ways to go. It's safest to keep Wagner in Peoria for at least one more season. Signing Polak would be a big step in securing our defence lineup. The front office needs to get on it and make the deal happen. Now. I know sometimes these things take a while, but seriously, stop beating around the bust and get this done.

At first, I didn't care whether we re-signed BJ "Breadcrumb" Crombeen or not. But now, I can't help but wonder why we did. We already have enough young, talented forwards to hang onto Breadcrumb any more. But now that he's a sealed deal, I think it would be best to send him to Peoria for now. That likely won't happen, but I really think it would be in the team's best interests.
The man, the myth, the Lagace... oops! Oh well, it won't be the first time someone mispelled his name. Like when he won the Stanley Cup in 2002, and his name was spelled "Lagace" on the 'Cup. At least he took the news better than Adam Deadmarch... I mean, Deadmarsh.Manny Legace has been a huge question mark since he got demoted to Peoria. When you have a goalie who has won Olympic silver, played in an AHL All-Star Game, won the Holmes Memorial Trophy and the Bastien Memorial Trophy (best AHL goalie and AHL goalie with the fewest goals against, respectively), played in an NHL All-Star Game, and won a Stanley Cup, and win over a city like St. Louis in the process, and his performance slips so badly he is demoted to the AHL, that can leave his future in the NHL uncertain. Despite injuries, he hasn't done a a bad job in St. Louis. That is, until the 09 season. I'm all for second chances, but I'm just not sure about Manny. With the exception of losing to Curtis Sanford twice, and having to be bailed out by Ben Bishop and Chris Holt, he did an okay job in Peoria. Although he couldn't get past the first round of the AHL playoffs, still, he had a 2.00 GAA (10th in the AHL playoffs) and a .935 save % (12th in the AHL playoffs). As much as I'd like to see him get a second chance, I'd also like Bishop to get more time in net, and resume development, with Holt backing him up, who did a great job of it this season. With Jean-Phillippe Lamoureux gone, perhaps signing Legace can leave more possibilities for filling the void in Alaska?

Why the hell did we let Trent Whitfield get away? He was everything the Rivermen could want in a veteran leader. So what if he never was NHL material? He was an invaluable piece of the system in Peoria. With so many talented up-and-comers, it was a no-brainer to keep Trent. He said himself he liked the way things were in Peoria, his family was comfortable there, and he trusted the coaching staff. There was nothing wrong with him or what he was doing. To say he did a tremendous job is an understatement.

I know some of the other teams have bigger issues than these, and this likely is the least of the Blues' worries, but I just don't understand the moves this organization has made recently. Signing Conklin and Tkachuk were some of the best moves made so far, but other than that, it's been quite questionable. I don't want to lose faith and confidence in this team all over again, but it's getting harder and harder not to. The Blues better start making better moves, I want to actually believe in my team when the season starts. And right now, the outlook for that isn't very bright. Here's hoping that can change by the time the Blues hit the ice in October.

Incredibly Late-Period Penalties

Something has been on my mind for a while now, and I never really took the time to mention anything about it. Better late than never I guess. Anyway... A while back, something really irritated the hell out of me and I'm going to talk about it whether you like it or not.

May 10, 2009. I'm watching the Bruins and Hurricanes, who appeared to be getting increasingly hostile with each other as the game progressed, especially in the 3rd period. Hope for the Hurricanes to win the game was long gone at this point, I was just watching for kicks now. But late in the 3rd period, something happened. And by "late," I really mean late. There must have been 1-2 seconds left in the period, and subsequently, the entire game. A big hoo-ha breaks out, fists are flying everywhere, it's a slobberknocker on the ice, and to top it all off, Milan Lucic is sent off on a misconduct. As I'm sitting there, amused by the referees' temporary lack of ability to restrain the players, I realized, they stopped the clock. No biggie, right? Any other point in the game, it would indeed be no biggie. But this was the 3rd period, and there were 1-3 seconds left.
Simply put, I got to wait a few minutes until the puck dropped and the final 1-3 seconds were officially burned off the clock and Boston could tally up a win. I waited several minutes for a 1-3 second countdown.

This wasn't the first time my rage was aroused by a late-period penalty that forced a several minute-long waiting period before the final 3 seconds of a period or game could be officially counted down. It has happened before- not much, but it still happens nonetheless.

I don't know if this is normal, but I just don't understand why the clock has to be stopped to address a penalty... when there's 2 seconds left in the period. All it does is burn up time before the period inevitably ends. Maybe it's just me, but it would be much wiser (and time-saving) to wait until the period is over, and just carry over the penalty to the next period. Instead of starting the period on the powerplay for 1:59, why not make it the full 2 minutes? I know that may not seem like much of a difference. We'll all agree that it isn't. At all. But think about how much time it would save in the final seconds of the last period. Instead of burning up a minute or two for addressing the penalty, the clock isn't stopped, no time is wasted, and the penalty carries over to the next period in it's entirety. It may only save a minute or two, which isn't much, but it does spare the arousal of my anger, which would be flaring if the penalty had delayed the end of the period.

So that's my proposed solution to really, really, really, really late-period penalty calls.

But what if it's the 3rd period?

My proposal still stands. I just don't see a point in stopping the clock when there's 2 seconds left to send a player to the penalty box when they'll only spend 2 seconds there. I think it would make much more sense to just let the clock burn out and let the penalty go. It just wouldn't be worth it to keep him in the box and let play resume if it will last only 2 seconds. And it would save me plenty of unneccessary rage.