On Monday, Detroit officially signed Dominick Hasek to their team - making the average age of their goaltender 37 years old.
Trust me, that's not a good thing.
Detroit finished on the top of their divison, conference and the league in the standings last year - but flopped out of the first round against the surging Edmonton Oilers. Perhaps they were an overrated team that played in a weak division or maybe they had a bad break or two - it's moot.
The last time that Hasek laced up for the Red Wings (in 2002), he backstopped them to a Stanley Cup - which is what I'm sure that the Wings were hoping for when they signed him this time. But it won't be enough - it wouldn't be enough even if they signed Roberto Luongo (okay, maybe that would be enough - maybe).
The Red Wings mainly used three goalies last season - their former #1 (and the first player dropped from their roster) Manny Legace, who posted 37 wins, a 2.19 GAA and a save % of 915, Chris Osgood, who had 20 wins, a GAA of 2.76 and .897 save % and Jimmy Howard who played in all of four games (and isn't even listed on their roster anymore).
But after their almost epic first-round collapse against the Oilers, the Red Wings have had an overhaul - gone are their star goalie (Manny wasn't resigned), their captain (Steve Yzerman retired in July) and their goals-scored leader left via free agency (Brendan Shanahan signed with the Rangers in July). Adding to that, it's only a matter of time before age renders their emotional leader, Chris Chelios, unable to play at the level he must.
The Red Wings are an old team getting older in a league where speed is suddenly the key. Last season their success could more of less be attributed to a combination of stellar goaltending from Legace and the general lack of success in their division (three of the five teams in their divison finished in the cellar last year: St. Louis, Chicago and Columbus) - but with the loss of Legace and the improvement of Columbus - after all, a healthy Rick Nash may well be the difference between the cellar and a good playoff run for the Blue Jackets - even bringing in Hasek may mot work.
Hasek hasn't played a full season in years - he hasn't started more then 44 games since the 2001-02 season - and is coming off of a season-ending injury that he sustained during the Turino Olympics. And while his stats are good - He's had a GAA under 2.50 since 1995-96 and had more then 20 wins in three of his last four seasons - it would be an absolute surprise if he can dominate like he did with the Senators one more time.
So - what's to expect from the Red Wings? Don't write them off quite yet - they're still a good team in a bad division - but don't expect them to win with Hasek in net.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Friday, July 21, 2006
This ship is sinking, right?
I have a question for you: I'm an all-star third baseman, I had a three home run game in July 2003, I recently adopted a child and I've burned my bridges in another AL city... Who am I?
Shea Hillenbrand, who infamously called Theo Epstien a faggot back in 2003, is back up to his old tricks. After having recently adopted a child he left the team for a number of days (so he could fill out paperwork)- and when he got back he was angry, howlingly mad, that the team wasn't happy to see him and give him untold riches (or at least a basket of fruit).
Sure, the Jays were a bit of a swoon - they had won three of their last six games (against the sub-par Seattle Mariners and Rangers) and were hurting: they had been playing extra inning games a fair amount recently. BJ Ryan - who had been fantastic all season - had blown two saves since the All-star break. Two players went down with Staph infections. Their rotation was in shambles, with Chacin gone until August and only Doc Halladay posting a plus .500 record. And they play in the most competitive division in baseball - and maybe in all of sports.
But this apparently didn't matter to Shea - or maybe it did, way too much. He was the one who wrote that the Jays were a "Sinking Ship" on the clubhouse blackboard. He almost got in a fight with his manager, John Gibbons. He was the one who communicated with the team through an agent. He was the one who was mad that the Jays seemingly didn't care that he adopted a child. And he was the one who through a fit.
Last year, Terrell Owens was doing the same kind of thing - he was mad that the Eagles wouldn't celebrate his 100th touchdown with the kind of vigor and bravado that T.O accompanies each and every touchdown with. He slammed everybody, from his coach to Donovan McNabb, in the press - such as his beauty suggestion that he would have won the Superbowl with Brett Farve. And he, almost singlehandedly, took the team that made it to the Superbowl and shoved them down into the gutter, where they still remain.
This is what Shea could - and, if he remained on the team, would - do to the Blue Jays. They're a good team that's only getting batter (Imagine a rotation of Halladay, Burnett, Chacin, Jassen and Lilly with BJ Ryan anchoring the bullpen... Fantastic, eh?) but with Shea blowing fits of a TO caliber, he'll bring the team down - almost like how Raphael Palmeiro brought down Baltimore.
The difference, though, between T.O. and Shea is that T.O. can back up his words - he came back from a horrid injury way too soon, so he could play in the Superbowl... And he had a good game, even by his standards. That's talent. Shea is good (he's hitting .301 with an OPS of .822) but he's most certainly not as good at his position as T.O. is.
So, what now? The Jays can trade Shea, dump him down to AAA or just dump him on the corner of Bay and Bloor. If they trade him, though, they might not get a lot for him - but getting something is better then nothing and the Jays need another arm in the rotation. Maybe Florida will take him - and a lot of prospects, plus maybe Jassen - for the D-Train (or maybe I'm a hopeless dreamer). Either way, he's not one to be missed.
Just ask any Boston fan.
Shea Hillenbrand, who infamously called Theo Epstien a faggot back in 2003, is back up to his old tricks. After having recently adopted a child he left the team for a number of days (so he could fill out paperwork)- and when he got back he was angry, howlingly mad, that the team wasn't happy to see him and give him untold riches (or at least a basket of fruit).
Sure, the Jays were a bit of a swoon - they had won three of their last six games (against the sub-par Seattle Mariners and Rangers) and were hurting: they had been playing extra inning games a fair amount recently. BJ Ryan - who had been fantastic all season - had blown two saves since the All-star break. Two players went down with Staph infections. Their rotation was in shambles, with Chacin gone until August and only Doc Halladay posting a plus .500 record. And they play in the most competitive division in baseball - and maybe in all of sports.
But this apparently didn't matter to Shea - or maybe it did, way too much. He was the one who wrote that the Jays were a "Sinking Ship" on the clubhouse blackboard. He almost got in a fight with his manager, John Gibbons. He was the one who communicated with the team through an agent. He was the one who was mad that the Jays seemingly didn't care that he adopted a child. And he was the one who through a fit.
Last year, Terrell Owens was doing the same kind of thing - he was mad that the Eagles wouldn't celebrate his 100th touchdown with the kind of vigor and bravado that T.O accompanies each and every touchdown with. He slammed everybody, from his coach to Donovan McNabb, in the press - such as his beauty suggestion that he would have won the Superbowl with Brett Farve. And he, almost singlehandedly, took the team that made it to the Superbowl and shoved them down into the gutter, where they still remain.
This is what Shea could - and, if he remained on the team, would - do to the Blue Jays. They're a good team that's only getting batter (Imagine a rotation of Halladay, Burnett, Chacin, Jassen and Lilly with BJ Ryan anchoring the bullpen... Fantastic, eh?) but with Shea blowing fits of a TO caliber, he'll bring the team down - almost like how Raphael Palmeiro brought down Baltimore.
The difference, though, between T.O. and Shea is that T.O. can back up his words - he came back from a horrid injury way too soon, so he could play in the Superbowl... And he had a good game, even by his standards. That's talent. Shea is good (he's hitting .301 with an OPS of .822) but he's most certainly not as good at his position as T.O. is.
So, what now? The Jays can trade Shea, dump him down to AAA or just dump him on the corner of Bay and Bloor. If they trade him, though, they might not get a lot for him - but getting something is better then nothing and the Jays need another arm in the rotation. Maybe Florida will take him - and a lot of prospects, plus maybe Jassen - for the D-Train (or maybe I'm a hopeless dreamer). Either way, he's not one to be missed.
Just ask any Boston fan.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
When it rains...
Barry Bonds - one of the best and most controversial athletes this side of Ty Cobb - is in trouble with the law... Again.
First it was the BALCO scandal and the infamous MLB senate hearings - but this time it's much more serious: this time it's on charges alleging that he as involved in money laundering, perjury and tax evasion. No longer are the charges fairly tame - these carry not just heavy fines but possible jail time for the slugger.
So what does this mean for baseballs most abrasive superstar? In what will surely be his final season, Barry seems almost destined to go down in flames. Everything he's done this year and everything he has ever done is already being overshadowed by these charges.
Yes, Barry is loved by his fans - almost all of which reside in the greater San Francesco area. As soon as you get 20 miles outside of town - Oakland, for example - Bond's is treated with hatred and loathing - he has a worse reputation that almost any other athlete I can remember: it's worse then Donald Brashear, worse then Albert Belle, worse then T.O... And these latest charges aren't going to help him improve his image any time soon.
These latest charges mostly bring up the debate about his alleged use of steroids - charges levelled in books and by investigators in the BALCO inquiry. And if - this is a huge if, though - Bonds did commit perjury in 2003, then did he use steriods? And if he did , what does that mean to you and me? What should baseball do about it?
Pete Rose was banned for conduct that was detrimental to baseball ("...Allegations that Peter Edward Rose engaged in conduct not in the best interests of baseball..."(1)) when it was found that be bet on major league games as manager of the Reds - including on his own team (but only to win, he says, and never against them)... Which doing so is one of the worst things that he could have done, since it challenges the integrity of the game: it has a direct effect on the outcome of the game (Does he refrain from betting when he knows that he can't win? Will he try as hard on those games?).
So, tell me: how is using external substances to give you an unfair advantage - to make you better suited to hit the ball then the other team (and your teammates)- any better or worse then betting on the game? By using steroids - even if they were legal at the time - you are effectively giving yourself an advantage that the other team doesn't - or at least shouldn't, anyway - have. By doing so, he's fostering in bad elements to the game - users and makers of drugs, people whose entire lifestyle is catered to people who cheat. How is that any better or any worse then letting in people who bet on baseball?
Steroids have been banned because they create an unlevel playing field - if one guy uses anabolic steroids, then you have to use animal growth hormones to compete at his level - and then he uses Human Growth Hormone so he can compete and so forth and so on. It's a vicious cycle that fosters cheating and trying to outdo your opponent, often with extremely serious risks to your - and by extension, those of your fans - health. Sure, everybody in baseball has cheated once or twice - from peeking at the catcher's signs, from doctoring the ball to corking the bat to whatever. That's one thing - it gives you an unfair advantage, yes - but it's also easily countered by the other team: they can bean you with the ball or the umpire can change the ball being used and etc. But by using steroids, you're not only putting yourself at serious health risks, but when everybody else has to do the same - just to keep it fair - you're putting their health at risk too.
Pete Rose was banned for betting on baseball - but as bad as that was, it never put the health of the players at risk. But if indeed Barry Bonds did use steroids, helping to foster in the "Steroid Era", he also helped to challenge the health of (and to shorten the careers of) many players. If he did cheat by using steroids, then he challenged the integrity of the game by he giving himself an unfair advantage at the expense of everybody else. How is that any better then betting on baseball?
Yes - Barry Bonds, if he is found guilty of steroid use, was far from being the only player to use them. But at the same time, baseball needs to make an example to show that they are serious about expelling steroids, Human Growth Hormone and all the other chemical additives that create an unfair game - and if they remove anybody, they should remove someone who would have benefited the most from them - and with more then 715 home runs, 70 home runs in a season and more, who could have benefited more then Barry from the use of them - but that's all if Barry did use them.
First it was the BALCO scandal and the infamous MLB senate hearings - but this time it's much more serious: this time it's on charges alleging that he as involved in money laundering, perjury and tax evasion. No longer are the charges fairly tame - these carry not just heavy fines but possible jail time for the slugger.
So what does this mean for baseballs most abrasive superstar? In what will surely be his final season, Barry seems almost destined to go down in flames. Everything he's done this year and everything he has ever done is already being overshadowed by these charges.
Yes, Barry is loved by his fans - almost all of which reside in the greater San Francesco area. As soon as you get 20 miles outside of town - Oakland, for example - Bond's is treated with hatred and loathing - he has a worse reputation that almost any other athlete I can remember: it's worse then Donald Brashear, worse then Albert Belle, worse then T.O... And these latest charges aren't going to help him improve his image any time soon.
These latest charges mostly bring up the debate about his alleged use of steroids - charges levelled in books and by investigators in the BALCO inquiry. And if - this is a huge if, though - Bonds did commit perjury in 2003, then did he use steriods? And if he did , what does that mean to you and me? What should baseball do about it?
Pete Rose was banned for conduct that was detrimental to baseball ("...Allegations that Peter Edward Rose engaged in conduct not in the best interests of baseball..."(1)) when it was found that be bet on major league games as manager of the Reds - including on his own team (but only to win, he says, and never against them)... Which doing so is one of the worst things that he could have done, since it challenges the integrity of the game: it has a direct effect on the outcome of the game (Does he refrain from betting when he knows that he can't win? Will he try as hard on those games?).
So, tell me: how is using external substances to give you an unfair advantage - to make you better suited to hit the ball then the other team (and your teammates)- any better or worse then betting on the game? By using steroids - even if they were legal at the time - you are effectively giving yourself an advantage that the other team doesn't - or at least shouldn't, anyway - have. By doing so, he's fostering in bad elements to the game - users and makers of drugs, people whose entire lifestyle is catered to people who cheat. How is that any better or any worse then letting in people who bet on baseball?
Steroids have been banned because they create an unlevel playing field - if one guy uses anabolic steroids, then you have to use animal growth hormones to compete at his level - and then he uses Human Growth Hormone so he can compete and so forth and so on. It's a vicious cycle that fosters cheating and trying to outdo your opponent, often with extremely serious risks to your - and by extension, those of your fans - health. Sure, everybody in baseball has cheated once or twice - from peeking at the catcher's signs, from doctoring the ball to corking the bat to whatever. That's one thing - it gives you an unfair advantage, yes - but it's also easily countered by the other team: they can bean you with the ball or the umpire can change the ball being used and etc. But by using steroids, you're not only putting yourself at serious health risks, but when everybody else has to do the same - just to keep it fair - you're putting their health at risk too.
Pete Rose was banned for betting on baseball - but as bad as that was, it never put the health of the players at risk. But if indeed Barry Bonds did use steroids, helping to foster in the "Steroid Era", he also helped to challenge the health of (and to shorten the careers of) many players. If he did cheat by using steroids, then he challenged the integrity of the game by he giving himself an unfair advantage at the expense of everybody else. How is that any better then betting on baseball?
Yes - Barry Bonds, if he is found guilty of steroid use, was far from being the only player to use them. But at the same time, baseball needs to make an example to show that they are serious about expelling steroids, Human Growth Hormone and all the other chemical additives that create an unfair game - and if they remove anybody, they should remove someone who would have benefited the most from them - and with more then 715 home runs, 70 home runs in a season and more, who could have benefited more then Barry from the use of them - but that's all if Barry did use them.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
50/50 and sinking fast
It keeps getting worse and worse for Barbaro. For the horse that had such a bright future ahead of it - from it decimating the crowd at the Kentucky Derby to having a memorable spot on PTI's "Role Play" - it's came downhill faster then it can run.
It started with him shattering his ankle during the Preakness - which caused so much damage and needed so much repair that he would never race again. In a flash, his career was over... And his life was in jeopardy. Even the most optimistic doctors were saying that his chances of survival were 50/50. It wasn't really a natural tragedy, but we all took hold, anyway. People were sending in flowers, apples and even cards - all for a horse that can't even communicate with people, let alone read.
But still, nobody likes to see a winner go down like Barbaro did in the Preakness. Granted, it wasn't as bad to watch as Joe Theismann snapping his leg or Clint Malarchuk catching a skate to the throat... But it was still a horrid sight to watch. Here was a powerhouse of a horse getting cut down in his prime - all because of a misstep.
And now the news keeps getting worse and worse. Barbaro's leg has healed, yes, but at the expense of his other hind leg - which has developed laminitis, an incurable ailment. His career as anything - a stud horse, a racing horse or just as something that some rich girl would get from her rich dad - is over beyond a doubt. Barbaro's race is almost completely run now. Granted, it's almost impossible to look after an injured horse, especially one as injured as Barbaro has been, without having some aftereffects. It's only a matter of time before he's put down by the same doctors that were working on him not two weeks ago.
But what can you do? The horse is going to suffer from this for the rest of it's life and it surely would not even still be here if it wasn't the famous horse it is. So maybe it's time for Barbaro. Yes, having him put down is a depressing move - but it's the only humane one there really is.
It started with him shattering his ankle during the Preakness - which caused so much damage and needed so much repair that he would never race again. In a flash, his career was over... And his life was in jeopardy. Even the most optimistic doctors were saying that his chances of survival were 50/50. It wasn't really a natural tragedy, but we all took hold, anyway. People were sending in flowers, apples and even cards - all for a horse that can't even communicate with people, let alone read.
But still, nobody likes to see a winner go down like Barbaro did in the Preakness. Granted, it wasn't as bad to watch as Joe Theismann snapping his leg or Clint Malarchuk catching a skate to the throat... But it was still a horrid sight to watch. Here was a powerhouse of a horse getting cut down in his prime - all because of a misstep.
And now the news keeps getting worse and worse. Barbaro's leg has healed, yes, but at the expense of his other hind leg - which has developed laminitis, an incurable ailment. His career as anything - a stud horse, a racing horse or just as something that some rich girl would get from her rich dad - is over beyond a doubt. Barbaro's race is almost completely run now. Granted, it's almost impossible to look after an injured horse, especially one as injured as Barbaro has been, without having some aftereffects. It's only a matter of time before he's put down by the same doctors that were working on him not two weeks ago.
But what can you do? The horse is going to suffer from this for the rest of it's life and it surely would not even still be here if it wasn't the famous horse it is. So maybe it's time for Barbaro. Yes, having him put down is a depressing move - but it's the only humane one there really is.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Thoughts on the Derby '06
Another July, another home run derby - and yet again, my picks are spectacularly off base. Since my track record is so impossibly bad - I'm talking like "Lions will win Superbowl XLI" bad - I didn't even bother posting them. Hell, I'm actually almost as embarrassed as I was last year.
That was something else, though - choosing Jason Bay. Jeez, he wasn't even able to get one home run. And my pick this year - er, Troy Glaus - only managed to get one more this time then Jason did this time (and Jason didn't even take part).
Sure, I also liked Ortiz, but even he didn't make it past the second round. And, actually, neither did I. I only know who won thanks to ESPN Radio, which managed to tell me something like 12 times last night, when I was trying to get some sleep.
So, then - why does anybody care about the home run derby?
The biggest home run names (Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Ken Griffey Jr, Albert Pujols) don't take part in it. Watching someone who you barely know hit home runs after the other - and watching them take something like 40 passed balls while they're at it - isn't exciting. The announcers don't even call half of the home runs. It's like watching Batting Practice on the YES network.
I think half of the thrill is that the players are so into it - where else, with maybe the exception of the slam-dunk contest, do you see all the all-stars sitting around, watching (and in a few cases, taping) the contest? It's almost like a showcase of their human side - sure, Ortiz is a powerful guy at the plate, but how often do we see him hanging around, joking with friends? I actually found that watching the players generally be themselves was more of an attraction then the derby itself.
Another is the fans. Remember that guy who caught the NFL game ball after a field goal a few years back? The one who jumped off a ledge to get to it? Now multiply that by 30. And with 20 different people.
Take last night, for example. Whenever a ball - and it was more then a few - was knocked outside the stadium and into the river, crowds of people in boats would all make a wild dash to the ball - which, more often then not, involved groups of people almost fighting in water. And it happened every time, too - it didn't matter who hit the ball, really - as soon as it got in the water, everybody was going after it. And it was funny, in it's own way.
Does the derby need to be improved? Sure - you could have to vote with one person from each position, maybe (and who wouldn't want to see a pitcher in a derby?) or you could work in a pitch count (to cut down on the passed balls). But either way, the home runs themselves aren't the attraction anymore - at least to me.
That was something else, though - choosing Jason Bay. Jeez, he wasn't even able to get one home run. And my pick this year - er, Troy Glaus - only managed to get one more this time then Jason did this time (and Jason didn't even take part).
Sure, I also liked Ortiz, but even he didn't make it past the second round. And, actually, neither did I. I only know who won thanks to ESPN Radio, which managed to tell me something like 12 times last night, when I was trying to get some sleep.
So, then - why does anybody care about the home run derby?
The biggest home run names (Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Ken Griffey Jr, Albert Pujols) don't take part in it. Watching someone who you barely know hit home runs after the other - and watching them take something like 40 passed balls while they're at it - isn't exciting. The announcers don't even call half of the home runs. It's like watching Batting Practice on the YES network.
I think half of the thrill is that the players are so into it - where else, with maybe the exception of the slam-dunk contest, do you see all the all-stars sitting around, watching (and in a few cases, taping) the contest? It's almost like a showcase of their human side - sure, Ortiz is a powerful guy at the plate, but how often do we see him hanging around, joking with friends? I actually found that watching the players generally be themselves was more of an attraction then the derby itself.
Another is the fans. Remember that guy who caught the NFL game ball after a field goal a few years back? The one who jumped off a ledge to get to it? Now multiply that by 30. And with 20 different people.
Take last night, for example. Whenever a ball - and it was more then a few - was knocked outside the stadium and into the river, crowds of people in boats would all make a wild dash to the ball - which, more often then not, involved groups of people almost fighting in water. And it happened every time, too - it didn't matter who hit the ball, really - as soon as it got in the water, everybody was going after it. And it was funny, in it's own way.
Does the derby need to be improved? Sure - you could have to vote with one person from each position, maybe (and who wouldn't want to see a pitcher in a derby?) or you could work in a pitch count (to cut down on the passed balls). But either way, the home runs themselves aren't the attraction anymore - at least to me.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
The Killer
When I was writing a piece for the Educated Sports Community on why Doug Gilmour was not a hall of famer, I started thinking about him - and by extension the rest of the 1993 Maple Leafs, a team which had a polarizing effect on my childhood. It pretty much changed the way I looked at things, really, which is pretty big when you're seven years old. I never again rooted for the same teams my dad did (hence my becoming a Steelers fan when they played the Colts in the 95 AFC Championship) and I never really got over my blame, justly there or not, towards the Killer.
I was talking to a co-worker about him the other day and we both admitted to hating him - she hated him for the infamous milk commercials, I hated him for what I always felt was his me-first kind of play, the kind where he would use all the flash and sizzle he could, but never to enough success.
This was evident with the 1993 Leafs playoff run - I remember his wrap-around goal behind Cujo in the second overtime to win and I remember that he kept trying, at least in my opinion, to outdo it, or at least to duplicate it's success. I remember taking huge shifts and taking it in the Kings zone by himself, I remember him making a lazy pass to Dave Elliot that was picked off and taken in for the first Kings goal and I remember him lying on the ice after getting high-sticked by Gretzky.
Maybe I've always unfairly blamed him for the Leafs collapse, like how Bill Buckner was unfairly blamed for Game Six. I don't know - but I know that he made a mistake that led to a Kings lead that the Leafs never came back from and I know that it was Wendel Clark who scored in the clutch and made it the game it was. I remember people standing up, so much so that CBC had to go to a different camera - people all hoping for a Leafs rally to tie and go to overtime.
I remember feeling like I had been crushed like a bug when they didn't.
But I also remember the Leafs going the distance against the Red Wings when Borschevsky scored in OT. I remember Glenn Anderson scoring in game five. I remember the CBC music stings, the intermissions and the graphics. I don't remember it all, for sure, but I remember almost enough. And I remember it being the most painful playoffs I have ever experienced - every series was a battle that the Leafs just made it out of.
So maybe they ran out of gas - they played 21 playoff games that year, after all, and they were all started by a young goalie named Felix whose career was pretty much all downhill after 93. But they never got closer then they did in 93. They made it back to the Conference finals in '94, '99 and again in 2002, sure, but they never were as close as they got in 93, when they were two goals away from facing the Canadiens.
It's been many years since the Leafs last won the Cup - it'll be 40 at the start of next season - and it's almost looking like it'll be at least a few more before the Leafs ever get as close as they did 13 years ago now - and it's hard to believe that it happened so long ago, too. After all, I was just a kid who was following what everybody else was doing. Having my team win like that would have been something, sure, but it was, well, something else. It was like Game Six. It was like The Band Is On The Field. It was like every other time when your team - it doesn't matter if it was the Red Sox, the Bruins or Duke - fell apart before your very eyes and lost the big one. It's very sobering for a kid - and, in my juvenile mindset, I blamed the fan favorite.
It may not have been his fault - indeed, a better idea might have been on Dave Elliot, who was out of position and had Gretzky bank the game-winner off of him. It could have been the management, who got rid of Wendel Clark (who, it should be worth nothing, always seemed to try and be Messier, taking the team on his back in the clutch) for Mats Sundin. It could have been Potvin, who started every game in the playoffs that year. It could have been anybody - but I blamed Gilmour.
****
I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here - that I still hate Dougie, that I unfairly blame him or if I'm just trying to get rid of those bad feelings from 93 that reading about Dougie and watching the Leafs fall apart at the Gardens on Classic gave me. Maybe it's all of the above; maybe it's none. Maybe there is no point, that this is just some lame gibberish lashed together. I don't know. And I guess that I should end this before I really get into something embarrassing.
I was talking to a co-worker about him the other day and we both admitted to hating him - she hated him for the infamous milk commercials, I hated him for what I always felt was his me-first kind of play, the kind where he would use all the flash and sizzle he could, but never to enough success.
This was evident with the 1993 Leafs playoff run - I remember his wrap-around goal behind Cujo in the second overtime to win and I remember that he kept trying, at least in my opinion, to outdo it, or at least to duplicate it's success. I remember taking huge shifts and taking it in the Kings zone by himself, I remember him making a lazy pass to Dave Elliot that was picked off and taken in for the first Kings goal and I remember him lying on the ice after getting high-sticked by Gretzky.
Maybe I've always unfairly blamed him for the Leafs collapse, like how Bill Buckner was unfairly blamed for Game Six. I don't know - but I know that he made a mistake that led to a Kings lead that the Leafs never came back from and I know that it was Wendel Clark who scored in the clutch and made it the game it was. I remember people standing up, so much so that CBC had to go to a different camera - people all hoping for a Leafs rally to tie and go to overtime.
I remember feeling like I had been crushed like a bug when they didn't.
But I also remember the Leafs going the distance against the Red Wings when Borschevsky scored in OT. I remember Glenn Anderson scoring in game five. I remember the CBC music stings, the intermissions and the graphics. I don't remember it all, for sure, but I remember almost enough. And I remember it being the most painful playoffs I have ever experienced - every series was a battle that the Leafs just made it out of.
So maybe they ran out of gas - they played 21 playoff games that year, after all, and they were all started by a young goalie named Felix whose career was pretty much all downhill after 93. But they never got closer then they did in 93. They made it back to the Conference finals in '94, '99 and again in 2002, sure, but they never were as close as they got in 93, when they were two goals away from facing the Canadiens.
It's been many years since the Leafs last won the Cup - it'll be 40 at the start of next season - and it's almost looking like it'll be at least a few more before the Leafs ever get as close as they did 13 years ago now - and it's hard to believe that it happened so long ago, too. After all, I was just a kid who was following what everybody else was doing. Having my team win like that would have been something, sure, but it was, well, something else. It was like Game Six. It was like The Band Is On The Field. It was like every other time when your team - it doesn't matter if it was the Red Sox, the Bruins or Duke - fell apart before your very eyes and lost the big one. It's very sobering for a kid - and, in my juvenile mindset, I blamed the fan favorite.
It may not have been his fault - indeed, a better idea might have been on Dave Elliot, who was out of position and had Gretzky bank the game-winner off of him. It could have been the management, who got rid of Wendel Clark (who, it should be worth nothing, always seemed to try and be Messier, taking the team on his back in the clutch) for Mats Sundin. It could have been Potvin, who started every game in the playoffs that year. It could have been anybody - but I blamed Gilmour.
****
I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here - that I still hate Dougie, that I unfairly blame him or if I'm just trying to get rid of those bad feelings from 93 that reading about Dougie and watching the Leafs fall apart at the Gardens on Classic gave me. Maybe it's all of the above; maybe it's none. Maybe there is no point, that this is just some lame gibberish lashed together. I don't know. And I guess that I should end this before I really get into something embarrassing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)