rician blast

Did I use the phrase "attempting to buy the championship"? Did I say it was wrong to do? No on both accounts...all I said was that THAT sort of spending spree diminishes the accomplishment in my eyes. Let me put it this way. If the Red Sox went out and signed Sabathia, Burnett and Lowe, and then won the WS, it would be a very expected win...in fact to me anything short of the WS championship would be a complete and utter failure. Tell you this, not the I ever gloat about them winning it, but IMO no Sox fan would have the right to gloat...I know some tools would anyway...but there would be no reason to as all they'd have done is meet obvious and attainable expectations. Would I be happy? Sure. But my enthusiasm would be greatly tempered. So that's my point...if the proposed signings did occur I'd expect the Yankees to win it all, and if they did not it would be absolute failure. If they did win? So what, they should have anyway. No sour grapes or anything, just my feeling. As for 2004 and 2007? Although you contend those championships were bought, if it's all about spending $$$ then I guess the Sox beat the odds, considering the Yanks had outspent them and the rest of MLB by $60-$80m. Also, let's remember that that the Sox were 4th in team payroll in 2008, that there were 10 teams that started 2008 with payroll over $100m and that after the Yankees, the next 8 highest payrolls were within $20m of each other (includes Mets, Tigers, Angels, White Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, Mariners, Red Sox). The Red Sox are not the only team beyond the Yanks with a large payroll. In fact, if you claim that the Sox bought the title in 2004 and 2007, then it applies, I suppose, that if the Mets or Tigers or Dodgers or Angels had won last year, you'd say they bought the title too?

Sabathia, Burnett AND Lowe? IF the Yankees do this and don't win it all, it'll be among the biggest failures in team sports history. That kind of spending spree, in my eyes, diminishes the accomplishment a tad, although I understand that a title is a title, and I'm sure the Yank fans wouldn't feel that way.

Good point on some of those guys. Rice was my favorite Sox player when I was a teen. I'd love to see a Jim Rice Day, or a Petey Day. On the other hand, my guess is no team, not the 'Stros or the Jays or the Sox or the Yanks will EVER have a Clemens Day. Poor Rog, he's so maligned.

Dojji, do you know a reliable source for who is starting each night?

note to the Mullets: Put the fkn puck in the net please. Thank You.

That is why I asked...I know where Chicago is and was on the attendance list, and since 2001 they've ranked 24th, 23rd, 24th, 27th, 29th, 29th and 19th. Just curious how you'd label them. Call it what you will but that is the way things are...for the most part in the US if the product sucks, people ain't buying; meanwhile there are other factors, such as other sports with which to compete, size and demographics of the city, history, geography, other entertainment. There was a time you couldn't get a ticket in the old Garden. Things changed, even before the lockout. I will say this, which to some degree confirms your comments...this year, 4 of the top 5 teams in attendance are original six...the other two? The Rangers at 12 and the B's at 21. (Hmmm, the 2 southern most of the original 6 are the lowest...duh). Should be noted that the Rangers are supposedly at 109% of capacity, so arena size is a factor in their case...then again they're drawing from a city of what...10 - 12 million? The hockey culture in Detroit, Toronto is clearly stronger and more engrained. That's part of being a northern, North American city. That Calgary, Vancouver and Ottawa are up there, then, should be no surprise at all. Regardless of what any other city says, Boston may not be a HUGE hockey town in their eyes but it's enough for me at this point... I would like to see the city offer a bit more support...if Boston could attract in the range of 17k per game they'd be close to other northern cities like Buffalo and Minnesota, which I think would place them about where they should be relative to their geography, history, population, etc. High school hockey here in CT and Mass. is big...prep school is even bigger..College hockey in Boston is huge, rivaling the powers from the lakes regions...and the B's are trying to get back there too, although they've got some work to do.

Chicago leads the NHL in average attendance thus far in 2009...would you call Chicago a hockey town?

Yes, they will come. It doesn't diminish the enjoyment we long-time and consistent fans get out of the season if a bunch jump on the bandwagon. One thing for sure, if attendance gets stronger maybe we can keep the Habs fans from invading home turf and having a noticeable cheering section...I went to a playoff game last year and was pretty frustrated with them booing Chara everytime he touched the puck although as the series wore on the B's fans would anticipate that and cheer him every time he was even near the puck. Last night the "Away, away" and "nanana" chants were priceless. Gotta get to a B's - Habs game in Montreal some day. I guarantee I WON"T wear B's stuff.

A couple of posters have made my point since the above...but again, Manny with his head screwed on semi-right might have made a difference, but a "tormented Boston Manny" likely would not have...that is, if he didn't totally derail their chance to make the playoffs in the first place.

fkn a, kilo, he was a trip last night.

Said it before, will say it again...the LA Manny does not equal The Boston Manny. The guy threatened to lie down if not traded. So let's say he stayed through the playoffs...isn't it possible he'd have been that despondent...or defiant...that it would have affected his play to the extent that he'd hurt the team? That's not a chance the FO could take. The Sox were a better offensive team when Manny was right in the head. To assume he would have been right in the head in the 2008 stretch run and playoffs is a huge leap of faith, given his comments leading up to the trade. Ortiz is welcome to say what he wants, and if he is right, that the Sox would have won it with Manny, then I suppose MANNY is DIRECTLY responsible for the Sox not winning it this year, via his being a fkn tool.

Whoa, This ain't that kinda forum, buddy. :stop:

What the f is going on with my team? I got crushed 7-2-1 last week and this week? I was down 5-3 before last night...now I'm down 9-0! When you build your team on goalies and one goes down, leaving you with one clear starter and the other(s) in a platoon situation, it gets very tough.

Same here, although Chicago had been 6-0-2 at home coming into last night's game and they were scoring goals in bunches. I'm psyched for the game tonight. Would love to see them win one by a few.

Read it in a preview...globe or herald, not sure which. Yes, Thomas was good last night...and I had him riding the pine on my fantasy team, just never got around to making the roster change.

Big game tonight vs. the Habs. I believe we'll have Manny F in the nets. I expect an extremely intense game.

From the NY Post: "Yankees officials insist that they do not plan on spending all of the roughly $88 million coming off the books. But they plan on spending enough to upgrade their rotation." $88m coming off? That's a lotta cabbage, and even after signing Sabathia and another pitcher, and doing some tweaking, they could be shaving off $40-$50m from 2008's payroll.

Palmer's 71% W% > Ryan's 57%. Ryan's 16 losses vs. Palmer's 9 killed him.

To be honest I'm not surprised that he never won that award as the voting is subjective, and K's alone don't do the trick. In 1972 and 1977 he lost 16 games. Tough to win it with those loss totals...while Gaylord did win with 16 losses in 1972, he also had 24 wins and a 1.92 ERA. You could go through the record books and find a lot of cases where the winner could be questioned.

Kilo, 21..tough call on the B's right now. Only 3 teams have better records (W% wise). However I do believe the Rangers, Pens, Sabres, Canadiens and Devils are all better teams. I'd call the Sens and Canes even with the B's at this point. My feeling is they could end up anywhere from 6th to 9th in the conference, as if Thomas cools off, which I fear could happen, they could slip. The Flyers, to me, are an enigma. They could end up anywhere from 4th to 10th, IMO as their goaltending can be very good or very bad. They need to keep the puck out of the net as only 2 teams in the conference have allowed more goals. I see the B's coming in 7th or 8th in the regular season, losing another 1st round series. Now, if they'd somehow come in 4th or 5th? I could see them winning a series.

I think you are right, 21, Green was re-signed by Washington, not an UFA.

I think the cap gets bumped up again next year, and Ryder is only signed for 3 yrs, that's pretty short in relation to a lot of the other off-season signings. As for D-men, the good ones commanded some serious coin this off-season...Hainsey for Atlanta signed a $22.5m 5 yr deal, Blake cost the Sharks $5m for one year, Pitkanen's deal was $6m per for 2 yrs, Wade Redden couldn't fit under the cap...Mike Green would have been a nice pick up though, 4 yrs, $5m per, if they could have swung it.

The trouble I have with that sort of analysis is that there are too many what ifs...if they kept that guy, then they'd do this or that...so where do you draw the line, how far back do you go? The analysis has to be kept more straightforward, i.e. had they not signed Ryder, the $4m could have been spent as follows... Kristian Huselius would have been an option at forward, he signed with Columbus for just under $5m per yr for 4 yrs. Another option might have been Marcus Naslund, 2 yrs, $4 per yr from the Rangers. Either might have brought more flash, more offense, BUT are they two way players? Would they have fit the B's system? I keep coming back to the fact that while I'm not thrilled with Ryder so far, I think he was signed at fair market, and if the B's FO felt he was a fit...rather than feeling he'd put up a stat line that would make fans happy...then I can't argue his signing.

As I recall, at the time of the signing I already questioned whether they could have spent the $4m on someone else, not necessarily a D-man. No B's fan I know was stoked by this signing, so you're not telling us anything we don't know. At the same time, I wasn't appalled by the signing because I thought they paid pretty much market price, though I've not checked, until now, to compare to other FA signings. Let's look at some FA signings and see what the dollar year gets you (I show average annual salary): Mark Streit - Islanders, $4.1m per yr for 5 yrs Wade Redden- Rangers, $6.5m per yr for 6 years Michale Roszival- Rangers, $5m per year for 4 yrs Brian Rolston- Devils, $5m per yr for 4 yrs Damon Langkow Flames, $4.5 per yr for 4 yrs Pavol Demitra Vancouver, $4m per yr for 2 yrs RJ Umberger Blue Jackets, $3.75m per yr for 4 yrs Ron Hainsy Thrashers, $4.5m per yr for 5 yrs Pitkanen Hurricanes, $6m per yr, 2 yrs Sean Avery Stars, $3.75m per yr for 4 yrs One of the keys to the Ryder deal was that it is only a 3 yr deal. I'd say the Bruins paid market for him based upon what we see above. Sean Avery for $3.75m per? Same for Umberger? Makes Ryder look like a steal. I'd be interested to see what you think the B's could have done with that $4m and, if it went to a D-man, which current D-man they'd have dropped and who the additional forward would be.