Bertuzzi

How curious that Markus Naslund would question Steve Moore's character in the media yesterday. With Moore filing a lawsuit against the Canucks organization for the planning and forethought that went into the attack, the most damning evidence and the most obvious lack of character was shown by the Canucks themselves. If the legal hit that started the chain of events was so egregious, if the Canucks felt it was so vital to the psyche of the team to exact revenge, why wait? Why hide behind the Instigator Penalty? Naslund's alleged injury was so "damaging" to the team that it wasn't worth a 10 minute misconduct?
As far as character is concerned, the Canucks played 60 minutes in Colorado shortly after the attack and not so much as a whimper was heard from any of them. They waited almost 2 full games and needed the security of a home crowd before confronting Steve. Nice courage, ladies.

Bravo Gary Bettman!!

Sincerely, I could not have been happier with yesterdays news. The fact that the union made the drastic concession that it would accept a salary cap made Gary's next move obvious, and I'm surprised most people missed it. If you spend all this time and effort preparing for Armageddon, if you waste the majority of a season and the damage is already done, why settle? There is absolutely no reason to accept anything but total concession by the players now, and the only way to make all the pain worth it is to succeed unconditionally which the players made inevitable by blinking first.
As for all the bleating that maybe Gary should have been "nicer" in his final letter to the union, wipe your noses and grow up. The union pushed the league into this wasted season, the union members and their apologists are on an all out personal assault against Gary, for them to want a little sugar now is pathetic. I support the owners 100 percent and will be the first one in the door if there are games with replacement players in the fall. Gary is the one continually going to bat for this market and I will repay him in every way I can, not the bastards in the union who every single day say the league would be better if the league contracted some of it's weaker (read small market) teams.
It looks so good on the players; I hope they wear it well!!

Asterisks

The last year or so the discussion around Barry Bonds and Jose Canseco has inevitably led to the topic of records and how the milestones of the past should be preserved against the onslaught of "science". On a recent Dan Patrick show callers unanimously voiced that steroids were worse for the game than gambling because as purists the lore and the records were the most sacred part of the game for them, which is ludicrous.
As in every sport, there can be no logical comparison between eras. In hockey for example, athletes of today use supplements, off-ice training and conditioning, and composite equipment that no player of the 30's or 40's could ever dream of.
The old league featured six teams of approximately seventy of the best Canadian players who through word of mouth had the opportunity to be approached by a major league club to try out for the team. The league of today has the best players on the planet identified and groomed before their bantam age. Players today travel on charter airplanes and stay in the best hotels, while players of the past traveled by train in smoky berths.
The contrasts are endless, and in baseball they are even more stark. Astroturf, designated hitters, no standards for park size, interleague play, segregation; how can anyone intelligently compare Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds or even Barry Bonds and Manny Ramirez with a straight face?

"Pundits"

Lately, with the lack of hockey highlights to show, the evening sportscasts have often led with a panel of "pundits" discussing the latest bargaining moves and predictions of how things may or may not turn out. Not unlike the mood and momentum of caller opinion on sports talk radio, it tends not to have basis in fact or even reflect a majority opinion but because it is loud and repetitive it dominates the conversation and sometimes replaces the story itself.
A little sober reflection always reveals a pundit's opinion is strictly an entertainment tool and seldom bears out in reality. When the Lakers added Karl Malone and Gary Payton to their squad, commentators were discussing with certainty the possibility of an undefeated season. When the Yankees added Alex Rodriguez, the same commentators were certain the Yankees would go unchallenged for the pennant or World Series crowns, and would struggle with boredom more than anything else. Of course, in truth both teams were miserable and while still successful were nothing close to the marks set for them by the experts.
In hockey, when the Avalanche added Paul Kariya and Teemu Selanne the "gang" on Sportsnet practically wet themselves night after night, gushing with enthusiasm over the brilliance of Pierre Lacroix and unanimously predicting a runaway title for the Av's. Never mind that average fan in a roto league wouldn't touch either one for any reason, the commentators soon turned the inevitable 180 degrees when- Surprise- Kariya missed most of the season with injury and Selanne spent most of the season in the pressbox. Not once did the panel ever admit that their expectations were unrealistic but rather that the players had let the fans down!
I have always enjoyed Al Strachan's appearances on CBC's Hot Stove segment, he is always entertaining, but I've always been intrigued if a study could be conducted where transcripts of his opinions were compared to what eventually transpired. I am confident his success rate would be in the 10 percentile, which is fine if you take his rants for what they are, entertainment and nothing more. Unfortunatley, large portions of the people who watch tend to take him at face value and perception becomes reality.
In relation to what is going on today, people continually need to be reminded that Al was one of many who reported in 1994 that the league had fleeced the players and that we would all live happily ever after.