Elster's World

Friday, July 20, 2007

A Rant and Some Random Friday Thoughts

- I don't normally like to respond to critics and criticism in any forum where I write (because hey, if you don't have a thick skin as a writer, then you should NOT be writing). However, I feel that I do need to respond (finally) to Joe's constant criticism of me when it comes to commenting on the NHL (that's the National Hockey League for the uninitiated - which, sadly, is almost anyone alive right now). His argument goes something like this:

- You stopped watching hockey for the majority of a season - therefore you cannot possibly know anything about hockey anymore.
- You only watched the Rangers for the last month of the season, therefore you are not qualified to comment on hockey.

Ergo, whenever I talk about hockey I don't know what I'm talking about and everything I say should be dismissed, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong.

Um, huh? How does that make any sense? I rabidly followed hockey for over 20 years. Did I suddenly stop understanding the game in 7 months? Or is it rather that the Rangers changed so much since their humiliating sweep by the Devils 2 years ago that any commentary I have is outdated and just plain wrong?

Of course, it's neither. It's just that Joe is pissed that I stopped caring about the Rangers as much as he does. So when i say that Matt Cullen is making 3 million a year when in reality he's making 2.8 million (in other words big freaking deal!!) or when correctly pointed out that his trade to Carolina was nothing other than a salary dump, get lambasted even though I'm right. Do I agree with the trade? That's irrelevant. Because according to Joe, I don't have the right to even mention it. For all intents and proposes, Joe believes that I am not entitled to even discuss hockey. SO even if my analysis is correct (which it was - this was a salary cap related dump, nothing else) I am told I am not allowed to comment on hockey and that I'm just plain wrong.

(And yes I know Joe will respond it's neither of these things. Rather, he will say I just don't know what i am talking about. That my observations on the Rangers (and often on sports in general) are just plain wrong. But the thing about opinions is that they are just that, opinions. How can they be "wrong" per se?)

Am I trying to pick a fight? Of course not. Joe is the only person who even reads my blog, I certainly don't want to lose him as a reader. I also enjoy arguing with him about issues. And I understand that Joe is very stubborn in his beliefs and sincerely thinks his opinions are the correct ones. I on the other hand, am more apt to shout out a gut feeling and do a 180 degree flip on it the next day if someone can convince me I was wrong.

But (a) I have the right state my opinions whether he thinks I do or not and (b) his constant dismissal of my opinions crates an atmosphere where other people jump on that and summarily dismiss me as well (see Phan, Jets).

Either way, Joe I hope you don't take this personally, because it's not meant to be anything other than a rant.

Now, onto the thoughts:

- The NFL has decided to take a reactive, wait and see approach to the Michael Vick situation in Virginia. On the one hand, Vick was indicted by a federal grand jury - not a very good sign for him in terms of his repeated denials of involvement in the reprehensible dog-fighting taking place on his estate. On the other (as pointed out by Peter King on the Chris Carlin/Ian eagle show this morning), Vick has been in the league for 6 years and has not really been involved in any trouble. Unlike Pacman Jones, who was arrested something like 10 times in the last 5 years, the Commish is cutting Vick some slack until more details emerge.

In the meantime, it appears that the Falcons, with the league's approval, will urge Vick to take a break (paid of course) while this gets sorted out.

- What to make of this breaking news story that an NBA official bet on games, and fixed games that her was officiating? In a day and age where everyone has been crawling out of the woodwork to criticize the porous officiating of the last few years, this news is the league's worst nightmare - that not only do the referees suck, but they intentionally suck. Talk about destroying the integrity of the sport. A referee betting and fixing games is a travesty to a sport.

As an aside, who is going to be surprised when it comes out that the official is Joey Crawford (of the Larry Johnson, 4 point play fame).

- I know I shouldn't be stooping this low but how perfect is it that Tom Brady's kid with ex Bridget is scheduled for today - the same day as current squeeze Gisselle Buchehdjkdkej's birthday? I know I know, but anything that smears Brady and the Patriots, even a little, is a good thing.

- Impressions from last night's Met game - 6-0 after half an inning. 6-3 after 1. 9-3 after 1.5. Dodgers again rallying in the bottom of the second. I went to sleep 9-4 and woke up 13-9.

In other words, a classic pitcher's duel.

Is it me or is the Dodger stadium a sandbox? Maybe it's because San Diego's Petco Park is so cavernous.

3 Comments:

  • You have a right to an opinion about things like the Jets, the Mets, Lou Pinella, etc., even though you are usually wrong.

    Your posts about the Rangers make clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

    By Blogger Joe Schick, at 1:11 PM  

  • Wow - I guess you found some time for the "nonsense" after all. And I love it when you state i'm wrong like that. it makes your arguments seems so much more valid.

    So Cullen wasnt a salary dump?

    By Blogger Elster, at 10:24 PM  

  • A stupid salary dump since the Rangers now need a 3rd line center and will end up trying to find one near the deadline.

    Cullen is somewhat overpaid - he's not a 2nd line center - but his salary was tolerable for one more year.

    By Blogger Joe Schick, at 4:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home