Another hour and we see if San Jose can put off their demise for another game. My hope is they can pull off a "Philly Miracle", but I'm not holding my breath. :no:

World Championship
 

We are the champions! Czech Republic won the World Championship Ice Hockey 2010 Germany!
Wow!
:hug:

CONGRATULATIONS!!

We are very proud here in Boston Bruins land of our two Czech players, David Krejci and Vladimir Sobotka, and the Bruins will be opening the next NHL season in Prague!

Well the answer was no. Congradulations to the Blackhawks!!

As a Sharks fan, I wished the series would have lasted a little longer. With the exception of game two, the series was very competitive. The sharks played well, but Niemi was the series star. He made a number of unbelievable saves or the series could have gone the other way. Penalties killed the sharks in the third period. Boyle shooting the puck over the glass, Clowe's nice takedown ot Toews and Heatly's slash in the offensive zone. They were all stupid, undiscipled penalties. You knew the Blackhawks would cash in eventually, and they did. End of Story

Yeah, but unlike the other series that they were behind in their offense has totally disappeared(except for one game). Anything can happen of course, but I just think they may have met their match. Game #5 for all the marbles. I hope it will be a good game.


And San Jose is gone, having been swept in the series by losing 4-2 in today's game. I am really glad that Heatley has been denied the Stanley Cup Ring that he did all the whining to try and get.:)

I wonder if this latest setback will help or hurt the Sharks next season? Will they try to tinker with the lineup or will they leave it as is?

I too hope it will be a good game. Both the offence and the defence have known all season that Halak and Price can't win the games alone yet the forwards and defencemen refuse to do their part when required. I'm very disappointed in the first and fourth games. Montreal has the potential to win, they have to show they deserve to win.

I like this. I wanted Chicago to win. I want to see an all original 6 Stanley Cup final.

I'll bet that they leave the lineup as is. They don't really need to make changes. They need to keep their players out of the penalty box, as Captn Sacto has so eloquently pointed out.

Sad. It would have been great for the Sharks, a team that's never been there before, to be in the finals. I'm glad I decided to forgo the holding of my breath. Good to see a team besides Detroit or Pittsburgh get their shot at glory, it's time the cup belonged to a different organization for a bit.

I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again. There shouldn't be NHL teams in places where hockey could never be played under, for want of a better word, "natural" circumstances. San Jose is one of those places.

With the 4-2 defeat, Montreal has been eliminated from the playoffs. It is now Chicago VS Philadelphia for all the marbles!

I must admit that I am surprised that Jennifer has not made any mention of her beloved Flyers throughout their playoff journey.:eek:

Are you suggesting that the NHL only be allowed to play in cold weather climes? That's absurd. With that line of thinking, Baseball should only be played in warm climates, and New York should forget about hosting the Super-Bowl in 2014.

1. Yes. There should be no NHL teams in warm-weather climes. Period. I am not the only one on this site who thinks so.

2. Baseball is played in places that all have reasonably long periods of appropriate weather for the major part of the season, with some outliers in April and late September/October. Hockey could NEVER be played outside in San Diego, any month of the year, or in Florida, or other places with NHL teams.

3. If there were never another Super Bowl, I wouldn't care. I have absolutely no interest in American football.

I would be one of those who holds the same view.

What kind of reasoning is behind such views? Would you feel better if the NHL went back to the original 6 teams? Would you be inclined to feel the same if you had to relocate? Wouldn't you like to go to the local NHL arena hockey arena and watch your Bruins play what ever team calls home in your new town? I think you might sing a different tune if this was the case. Sports for most markets make money no matter where the team is located. Period.

Hockey in the sunbelt teams doesn't make money. Most of the sunbelt teams are losing money as the fan base isn't there. Nor is there interest in hockey down there.

I don't want to see a return to the original six. I would like to see the original six plus the existing franchises in Canada and several more in the northern US. I'd also like to see expansion into cities in Canada that previously had teams as well several more cities that have never had teams.

In order for me to watch a live NHL game I'd have to travel for several hour to get to the nearest arena.

I'm with ila, above. We've talked about it in this thread before. I would like to see expansion to other northern cities, especially in Canada. It would be great to see NHL teams in places that have real fan bases, like northern Minnesota, other cities in Michigan besides Detroit, and throughout Canada, such as Halifax, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, etc.

You simply have to take my word for it when I say that I would rather something be correct than be convenient for me. Fortunately, I'm not likely to have to relocate.

I suppose my reasoning is a hybrid of inductive and abductive. :)

Is a fan only allowed to be "real" if they live where they can skate outdoors? No. A "real fan" is someone who supports their team no matter what, has knowledge about the game, and a true passion for the sport itself. It matters not who's more fanatic about the sport, the teams are going where the money is, and I believe Winnipeg had their chance.


I can wrap my mind around your thought process, but it's not logical. If sports were meant to be played in the area they were conceived, there would no longer be professional sports. Granted caber tossing will be hard pressed to catch on in the states, but just because a warm state has a hockey team doesn't make it wrong.


To each their own. :respect:

The situation with Winnipeg is totally different with what is going on with Phoenix. Bettman did not offer to help out Winnipeg like he is with Phoenix, and back when Winnipeg was in trouble there was no Salary Cap and no revenue sharing and the Canadian dollar was quite low(situations that would likely have helped Winnipeg keep their team). Also, Bettman couldn't relocate the Jets fast enough, yet he continually tries to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix even though it has shown to not be economically viable.

So, Winnipeg really wasn't given a chance. Certainly not like Phoenix is, that is for sure. Many of Bettman's decisions have shown a decidedly anti-Canadian bias, and that is just one of the reasons I sincerely hope that he gets his ass tossed from the NHL.

Plus the fact that I am getting sick and tired of seeing his weasely face spout constant amounts of BS.;)

I wrote about a "fan base," not a "fan," so your response is not to my point. I do not deny that there can be and are individual hockey fans in cities that I think shouldn't have teams, but as the three kids who play for Boston College here, and who are from California and Arizona, they come from places with no fan base.

Again, you don't respond to what I actually wrote. I never said "sports were meant to be played in the area they were conceived." Were that the case, Canada would have no curling, only Scotland, and yet Canada is where it has the greatest support. Hockey wasn't conceived in Boston; it should, nevertheless, be played here.

Also, the question of whether there should be any professional sports is, I believe, a separate one. Let's not go there now.

Finally, as for caber tossing, this seems to me that it might be a good thing for which to use Bettman (see shadows' post just above).

ila, smc, and shadows...I agree to disagree. We can go round and round, but one place where we can find common ground is the fact that hockey is one of the greatest sports no matter where you live.

If a city can muster the fan base for a professional sport, then I'm all for that city having a team. That said, it's frustrating to see hockey played in places like California and Florida when my home state of Maine doesn't have a team. I get jealous sometimes, because the closest thing to pro sports we have are teams in Boston. But that said, I don't think hockey should be confined to the climates where it can be played outdoors.

As for the Habs, I'm sad to see that they're out of the playoffs. They just couldn't get anything going against the Flyers. When do the finals start?

I do agree that the NHL should have a team in Portland, Maine.

Here's the schedule for the finals. All games begin at 8 pm EST.

Game 1: Saturday, May 29 at Chicago
Game 2: Monday, May 31 at Chicago
Game 3: Wednesday, June 2 at Philadelphia
Game 4: Friday, June 4 at Philadelphia
Game 5 (if necessary): Sunday, June 6 at Chicago
Game 6 (if necessary): Wednesday, June 9 at Philadelphia
Game 7 (if necessary): Friday, June 11 at Chicago

If Jamaicans can bob-sled, why can't Hawaiians play hockey? That was a rhetorical question, not the first line of a joke. :lol:

Thanks for the schedule smc. Let's hope it's a good series! :yes:

Again, your responses don't seem to be about what I actually posted. I don't begrudge any Hawaiian who wants to play hockey. But there is a natural order to things, as evidenced by the kid at Boston College from Arizona who had to be driven 3.5 hours each way to the one practice hockey rink in the entire state. Arizonans or Hawaiians playing hockey is great, but it's not an accident that there are few, if any, rinks.

Earlier, you wrote: "I agree to disagree. We can go round and round, but one place where we can find common ground is the fact that hockey is one of the greatest sports no matter where you live."

I agree with the common ground about hockey. I don't agree to disagree. It's nothing personal; I just find that formulation to be unsupportable. Disagreements are part of the dialectic of argument and reasoning, and agreeing to disagree means stopping potential progress in its path. Again, it's nothing personal; it's just the way I see things. So, I agree to halt the discussion. Let's put it that way.

One thing about hockey in Hawaii that I wonder, though, is whether fans would throw pineapples on the ice rather than fish when they were angry at the players. :)

Here's hoping that Chicago wins. Unbelievably they've been without a cup for longer than Toronto.

I reiterate; that was a rhetorical question. Is it that difficult for you to have a laugh? Obviously you have strong feelings about "keeping it real", I can't deny you that, but there is no reason to abstain from a chuckle or two.

You have your reasons for you stance I have mine, better? I stated I can understand where you're coming from, and nothing personal, but in my opinion the only thing supporting your view is the fact that some "warm weather" hockey teams don't make money because of their location. That does not make the game impure or wrong for other temperate states to want a team they can call their own. You're lucky to live in an area that has a team, not all hockey fans are so lucky. Seeing a game played outdoors is a unique experience, yet it doesn't indicate sanctitude. All around the world, soccer/futbol is played by children using whatever they can find for a ball, on any surface available. This does not take away from the spirit of the sport.

Or coconuts! :)

I have no preference as I don't like either of the teams. I'm hoping for a seven game series, perhaps even an overtime or three. When it comes to suspense, sudden death in the finals takes the cake!

I am fully capable of laughing, although the thought of Hawaiians on skates playing hockey is more frightening than humorous. But you wrote: "That was a rhetorical question, not the first line of a joke." Now you imply that you meant it as a joke. I can't keep up. Anyhow, I took it as a rhetorical question, because that's what you indicated, but one that required a response since it was predicated on a misunderstanding of what I had previously written.

Just to be clear, I never supported my position with a single word about making money. That was someone else's post. If you go back and read all of my contributions to this exchange, you will not find any reference by me to the money issue.

I really want to be done with this exchange, but your point above only confirms my point. Those children can play soccer/futbol as you describe because the nature of the game ("nature" being the root of "natural" -- an important word in one of my earlier posts in this exchange) is such that those sorts of conditions and equipment allow it. Ice is a natural part of hockey. By the way, I would like to see artificial turf eliminated from all baseball.

Oh, what have I wrought by writing that?

And see, I can laugh: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

My fault for using the overtly subliminal :lol:. Next time I won't be so ambiguous with my response.


Then I will drop that issue from this debate.

No snow, no hockey. Makes complete sense. The NHL should rid themselves of all teams that are unable to play the whole season outdoors. Then just for kicks, once a year have an indoor game.

Here's a novel idea, Bud Selig should abolish inter-league games. After all, that's an unnatural thorn in the side of baseball's purists.

Let's not forget to require all dome teams, baseball and football, to vacate their respective cities. Games played indoors?!? Utterly ridiculous.

*sigh*

And then my Leafs will be the ones holding that "wonderful" milestone.:(

It's not a good idea to put words in my mouth, either explicitly or implicitly.

I never put words in your mouth, either explicitly or implicitly. I've simply expressed my opinion about such views on the subject.

I suggest you review what "implicitly" means and then check your postings.

But really, let's put an end to this. I agree that you can have the last word. Okay?

Any guesses as to who will win the Stanley Cup and in how many games?

I predict that the Blackhawks will win in 6 games(sorry Jennifer).

That is my prediction, as well: Chicago in 6.

By the way (and if it hasn't been mentioned already; I don't remember), there's a great sports documentary running on HBO lately titled "Broad Street Bullies." It's about the heyday of the Flyers. Highly recommended. Hockey doesn't often get the attention it deserves in this genre. Here's a link to info:

http://www.hbo.com/sports/broad-stre...ies/index.html

*lowers head, puts hands in pockets, kicks the dirt* Awww, shucks.

Tied at 2 with just a little bit of time left in the first. This has been a good game so far.

11 goals in game 1!?!?! Holy Grail! Never saw that happening. Damn good game!!!

That was a crazy game for offense. At least it was consistently exciting.

Well, game 2 was exciting as well, albeit not as highly scoring as game 1. Chicago is up 2-0 in the series. Have people stopped following the Stanley Cup? Are they just not interested in the two teams in the final?

I can't speak for any of the other hockey fans here, but I am still watching the finals. However, I don't have an allegiance to either team (although I do have lingering hatred of the Flyers that goes back to the days when they mercilessly beat people up throughout the league instead of playing actual hockey), though I am rooting for the Blackhawks mostly because they are an Original 6 team.

My main attention, though, has shifted to the Red Sox and Celtics. Oh, and also girls with cocks.

I'm only following the results in the paper on the day following the game. I've got no interest in either team although I do hope that Chicago wins The Cup.

I don't have any real rooting interest, but I do hope the Blackhawks win. And yes, I am watching every game. It doesn't matter who is playing, I love watching playoff hockey. I hope there are couple of overtime games.

Captn

I am keeping a close eye on the series to see if Pronger gets some of his chicklets knocked out of his gob after pulling his juvenile antics at the end of the first two games.;)

It seems he took the game puck after the final horn sounded in both game #1and game #2. Perhaps he should realize it isn't fazing the Blackhawks like he thinks, and should try some other way of getting in their heads.:lol:

Yeah, I'm not too impressed with Pronger's antics.

I guess it's a good thing for Pronger, then, that you are not his target audience. ;)

I do believe that any Blackhawks goalie is Pronger's target(ed) audience.

No sweep for Chicago! The Flyers won 4-3 in overtime, and the Flyers now trail two games to one.

They played last night? No shit...Duh, I should have known better. But I just wasn't able to catch the game. I was too sleepy.

Game #4 starts at 8pm EST tonight if you are able to catch it.:)

With any luck I'll be able to catch tonight's game! :)