Digest for alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 3 topics

Sunday, January 31, 2016

$Bill <news@todbe.com>: Jan 31 09:05PM -0800

Lakers with no energy from the start went down 5, 10 and 8 in the 1st 3 Qs to
create a big hole. 5 guys in DFs and Randle with the DD. Kobe had a pretty
decent game for a change but only 44% at that. CHA was an undermanned, sub-500
team and they still dispatched the Lakers easily. No excuse for the lack of
effort on both ends. 82-101 Lakers lose by 19.
 
Game Dbl-figures Leaders:
Player Pts FG% 3P% FT% RB AS BL ST TO PF EFF
Bryant 23 (44 /50 /100)/ 8/ 3/ 0/ 2/ 0/ 1/+26
Clarkson 13 (50 /67 /100)/ 0/ 1/ 0/ 0/ 1/ 3/ +8
Williams 11 (10 /17 /100)/ 2/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 3/ 0/ +5
Randle 10 (50 /0 /0 )/11/ 2/ 0/ 0/ 2/ 4/+16 DD
Russell 10 (60 /0 /80 )/ 6/ 1/ 1/ 0/ 5/ 3/+10
 
Next game: MIN at LAL: Tue Feb 2 1930 Game 51
 
#- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Congrats to Steve for closest predict.
 
CHA at LAL: Sun Jan 31 18:30:00 2016
 
NAME POST TIME LAL OPP DIFF VEC FROM
 
Actual Score 82 101 -19
 
Qualified:
svassier 30/17:23:34 89 93 -4 10.630 Online
 
Average guess: 94.5 94.0 0.5 24.289
 
Disqualified (doubles the vector score):
$Bill 31/18:33:42 100 95 5 37.947 Usenet
 
Current prediction contest standings:
 
By vector avg: Usenet Vec
Predictor Tries Firsts Seconds Thirds DQs Score Avg Member
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
scooby10672 18 7 3 4 2 46 14.697 yes
svassier 45 18 6 5 9 104 16.884 yes
Gary Collard 34 4 12 5 9 52 17.959 yes
$Bill 41 10 10 6 11 75 18.898 yes
MontanaMark 24 4 5 6 6 35 20.326 yes
Sean S 19 0 1 1 17 -13 38.101 yes
Ammammata 14 2 0 1 10 1 39.085 yes
 
By Usenet 5:3:1 Scoring: Usenet Vec
Predictor Tries Firsts Seconds Thirds DQs Score Avg Member
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
svassier 45 18 6 5 9 104 16.884 yes
$Bill 41 10 10 6 11 75 18.898 yes
Gary Collard 34 4 12 5 9 52 17.959 yes
scooby10672 18 7 3 4 2 46 14.697 yes
MontanaMark 24 4 5 6 6 35 20.326 yes
Ammammata 14 2 0 1 10 1 39.085 yes
Sean S 19 0 1 1 17 -13 38.101 yes
 
By vector avg: Usenet Vec
Predictor Tries Firsts Seconds Thirds DQs Score Avg Member
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scooby10672 2 0 0 0 1 -1 34.285 no
 
Laker contest home: http://www.todbe.com/lakers/
YTD standings: http://www.todbe.com/lakers/cgi-bin/lakerytd.pl
HTML Schedule: http://www.todbe.com/lakers/cgi-bin/lakersched.pl?action=html
Cut-n-Paste Sched: http://www.todbe.com/lakers/cgi-bin/lakersched.pl?action=text
 
#- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Quarterly Laker scoring leaders/notes (pluses OR/ST/BL; minuses TO/PF/oOR):
 
Q1 - Why do refs swallow their whistles in the last couple seconds of a Q?
Kelly was definitely fouled there - shooting 26% vs 31%; pluses 1/1/1;
minuses 1/2/2 - Lakers not getting decent shots at all. Clarkson 6,
Bryant 4. 16-21=-5Q.
 
Q2 - Clarkson gets fouled on the last shot - no call - then he gets called for
a foul with .4s left on the RB - we need better home cookin - shooting 42%
vs 48%; pluses 2/2/4; minuses 6/9/4 - really sloppy BH first part of the Q.
Bryant 11, Williams 6, Clarkson 4. 27-37=-10Q.
 
HT - Lakers looking lifeless out there - get some energy flowing and quit
letting these losers push you around - shooting 33% vs 39%; pluses 3/3/5;
minuses 7/11/6 - tons of errors between oORBs/TOs/PFs.
Bryant 15, Clarkson 10, Williams 8. 43-58=-15H.
 
Q3 - Lakers really aren't giving the effort - shooting 33% vs 38%; pluses 0/3/0;
minuses 6/7/8 - tons more mistakes. Bryant 8. 17-25=-8Q (60-83=-23).
 
Q4 - Lakers unable to put much of a dent in the deficit - shooting 35% vs 35%;
pluses 1/0/3; minuses 2/2/0. Russell/Randle 6. 22-18=+4Q.
 
Final - Lakers with no energy from the start went down 5, 10 and 8 in the 1st 3
Qs to create a big hole. 5 guys in DFs and Randle with the DD. Kobe
had a pretty decent game for a change but only 44% at that. CHA was
an undermanned, sub-500 team and they still dispatched the Lakers
easily. No excuse for the lack of effort on both ends. 82-101 Lakers
lose by 19.
 
Game Dbl-figures Leaders:
Player Pts FG% 3P% FT% RB AS BL ST TO PF EFF
Bryant 23 (44 /50 /100)/ 8/ 3/ 0/ 2/ 0/ 1/+26
Clarkson 13 (50 /67 /100)/ 0/ 1/ 0/ 0/ 1/ 3/ +8
Williams 11 (10 /17 /100)/ 2/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 3/ 0/ +5
Randle 10 (50 /0 /0 )/11/ 2/ 0/ 0/ 2/ 4/+16 DD
Russell 10 (60 /0 /80 )/ 6/ 1/ 1/ 0/ 5/ 3/+10
 
Team scoring by Q (FG%/FG-AT includes 3P%/3P-AT):
Lakers Opponent Lakers Opponent
Q FG-AT 3P-AT FT-AT FG-AT 3P-AT FT-AT FG% 3P% FT% FG% 3P% FT% LAL OPP
1 6-23 2-5 2-2 8-26 4-12 1-3 26.1 40 100 30.8 33.3 33.3 16 21
2 8-19 4-8 7-7 11-23 7-9 8-13 42.1 50 100 47.8 77.8 61.5 27 37
H 14-42 6-13 9-9 19-49 11-21 9-16 33.3 46.2 100 38.8 52.4 56.3 43 58
3 6-18 1-9 4-6 9-24 1-10 6-8 33.3 11.1 66.7 37.5 10 75 17 25
A3 20-60 7-22 13-15 28-73 12-31 15-24 33.3 31.8 86.7 38.4 38.7 62.5 60 83
4 7-20 1-7 7-8 8-23 1-5 1-2 35 14.3 87.5 34.8 20 50 22 18
F 27-80 8-29 20-23 36-96 13-36 16-26 33.8 27.6 87 37.5 36.1 61.5 82 101
 
Team stats by Q (RB includes team RBs):
Lakers Opponent Diff
Q OR RB AS TO ST BL PF OR RB AS TO ST BL PF OR RB AS TO ST BL PF
1 1 12 3 1 1 1 2 2 16 7 1 0 3 3 -1 -4 -4 +1 -2 -1
2 2 8 4 6 2 4 9 4 13 9 3 3 3 4 -2 -5 -5 +3 -1 +1 +5
H 3 20 7 7 3 5 11 6 29 16 4 3 6 7 -3 -9 -9 +3 -1 +4
3 0 7 3 6 3 0 7 8 21 6 6 3 1 4 -8 -14 -3 -1 +3
A3 3 27 10 13 6 5 18 14 50 22 10 6 7 11 -11 -23 -12 +3 -2 +7
4 1 15 3 2 0 3 2 0 9 6 0 2 1 5 +1 +6 -3 +2 -2 +2 -3
F 4 42 13 15 6 8 20 14 59 28 10 8 8 16 -10 -17 -15 +5 -2 +4
 
#- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Box Score from http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400828607
 
Team 1 2 3 4 Tot
Charlotte Bobcats 21 37 25 18 101
Los Angeles Lakers 16 27 17 22 82 - End of Q4
 
PLAYER POS MIN FGM-A 3GM-A FTM-A OR TR AS TO ST BS PF PTS +/- EFF
Marvin Williams PF 25 7-13 4-8 1-2 4 12 2 2 1 3 1 0 19 +9
Spencer Hawes PF 28 2-8 0-3 0-0 1 6 5 1 1 2 1 0 4 +7
Michael Kidd-Gilchr SF 28 6-7 2-2 5-8 4 12 3 1 1 0 2 0 19 +11
Jeremy Lin PG 22 2-10 1-3 1-1 2 5 5 1 0 0 2 0 6 +1
Kemba Walker PG 33 3-14 2-7 4-5 0 7 6 3 0 0 0 0 12 -2
Tyler Hansbrough PF 20 1-4 0-0 2-5 1 3 0 0 2 1 3 0 4 +0
P.J. Hairston SF 20 3-8 3-6 0-0 1 3 1 1 2 0 2 0 9 +0
Frank Kaminsky III C 23 5-9 0-1 1-3 1 3 3 0 0 2 2 0 11 +2
Brian Roberts PG 24 3-11 0-2 2-2 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 8 -3
Troy Daniels SG 14 4-10 1-4 0-0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 9 -1
Aaron Harrison SG 3 0-2 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 -1
Totals 36-96 13-36 16-26 14 59 28 10 8 8 16 0
Percent 37.5% 36.1% 61.5%
 
Fast break points: 10
Points in the paint: 36
Total Team Turnovers (Points off turnovers): 11 (15)
 
PLAYER POS MIN FGM-A 3GM-A FTM-A OR TR AS TO ST BS PF PTS +/- EFF
Julius Randle PF 31 5-10 0-0 0-0 1 11 2 2 0 0 4 0 10 +6
Kobe Bryant SF 23 8-18 4-8 3-3 1 8 3 0 2 0 1 0 23 +3
Roy Hibbert C 21 0-4 0-0 0-0 1 2 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 +0
Jordan Clarkson PG 30 5-10 2-3 1-1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 13 -5
Louis Williams SG 29 1-10 1-6 8-8 0 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 11 -6
Ryan Kelly PF 17 3-9 0-3 0-2 0 6 0 2 3 1 3 0 6 +0
Brandon Bass PF 20 0-4 0-0 2-2 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 +0
Nick Young SF 25 0-6 0-5 2-2 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 -2
Robert Sacre C 7 1-1 0-0 0-0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 +3
D'Angelo Russell PG 30 3-5 0-2 4-5 0 6 1 5 0 1 3 0 10 +0
Marcelo Huertas PG 7 1-3 1-2 0-0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 -1
Metta World Peace SF DNP COACH'S DECISION
Anthony Brown SF DNP COACH'S DECISION
Totals 27-80 8-29 20-23 4 42 13 15 6 8 20 0
Percent 33.8% 27.6% 87.0%
 
Fast break points: 6
Points in the paint: 24
Total Team Turnovers (Points off turnovers): 15 (12)
 
Flagrant Fouls: None
Technical Fouls: PLAYERS:None -TEAMS: CHARLOTTE (1), LALAKERS (2) -COACHES:None
Officials: Derrick Stafford, Bennie Adams, J.T. Orr
Attendance: 18,997
9:30 PM ET, January 31, 2016 STAPLES Center, Los Angeles, CA
 
 
Box Score from http://scores.nbcsports.msnbc.com/nba/boxscore.asp?gamecode=2016013113
 
Team 1 2 3 4 Tot
Charlotte 21 37 25 18 101
LA Lakers 16 27 17 22 82 - Final
 
PLAYER POS MIN FGM-A 3GM-A FTM-A OR TR AS TO ST BS PF PTS +/- EFF
S. Hawes C 27:37 2-8 0-3 0-0 1 6 5 1 1 2 1 4 +15 +11
K. Walker PG 33:04 3-14 2-7 4-5 0 7 6 3 0 0 0 12 +20 +10
M. Kidd-Gilch SF 27:57 6-7 2-2 5-8 4 12 3 1 1 0 2 19 +24 +30
M. Williams PF 24:47 7-13 4-8 1-2 4 12 2 2 1 3 1 19 +19 +28
J. Lin SG 21:58 2-10 1-3 1-1 2 5 5 1 0 0 2 6 +12 +7
B. Roberts 24:00 3-11 0-2 2-2 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 8 +6 +5
F. Kaminsky 23:13 5-9 0-1 1-3 1 3 3 0 0 2 2 11 0 +13
T. Hansbrough 20:23 1-4 0-0 2-5 1 3 0 0 2 1 3 4 +4 +4
P.J. Hairston 20:03 3-8 3-6 0-0 1 3 1 1 2 0 2 9 -5 +9
T. Daniels 13:55 4-10 1-4 0-0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 9 +5 +8
A. Harrison 3:03 0-2 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 -5 -1
J. Lamb DNP
N. Batum DNP
A. Jefferson INACTIVE
C. Zeller INACTIVE
Totals 36-96 13-36 16-26 14 59 28 10 8 8 16 101
Percent .375 .361 .615
 
PLAYER POS MIN FGM-A 3GM-A FTM-A OR TR AS TO ST BS PF PTS +/- EFF
R. Hibbert C 21:19 0-4 0-0 0-0 1 2 0 1 0 3 2 0 -13 +0
J. Randle PF 30:47 5-10 0-0 0-0 1 11 2 2 0 0 4 10 -4 +16
J. Clarkson PG 29:53 5-10 2-3 1-1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 13 -11 +8
L. Williams SG 28:37 1-10 1-6 8-8 0 2 2 3 1 1 0 11 -23 +5
K. Bryant SF 22:58 8-18 4-8 3-3 1 8 3 0 2 0 1 23 +1 +26
D. Russell 30:26 3-5 0-2 4-5 0 6 1 5 0 1 3 10 -9 +10
N. Young 25:02 0-6 0-5 2-2 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 -20 +0
B. Bass 19:55 0-4 0-0 2-2 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 -9 +2
R. Kelly 17:13 3-9 0-3 0-2 0 6 0 2 3 1 3 6 -15 +6
M. Huertas 7:04 1-3 1-2 0-0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 +5 +2
R. Sacre 6:46 1-1 0-0 0-0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 +3 +5
A. Brown DNP
M. World Peac DNP
T. Black INACTIVE
L. Nance Jr. INACTIVE
Totals 27-80 8-29 20-23 4 42 13 15 6 8 20 82
Percent .338 .276 .870
 
Officials: Derrick Stafford, Bennie Adams, JT Orr
January 31, 2016 Staples Center, Los Angeles, California
Attendance: 18,997
 
#- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
CBS: http://www.cbssports.com/nba/gametracker/recap/NBA_20160131_CHA@LAL
 
Charlotte at Los Angeles (20160131)
 
LOS ANGELES (AP) Marvin Williams and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist had 19
points and 12 rebounds apiece, and the Charlotte Hornets sent the Los
Angeles Lakers to their franchise record-tying 10th consecutive defeat,
101-82 Sunday night.
 
Kobe Bryant scored 23 points in 23 minutes, but the Lakers matched the
1994 team for the longest skid in the 16-time NBA champion franchise's
proud history. Los Angeles dropped to 9-41, guaranteeing three straight
non-winning seasons for the first time since 1961.
 
Kemba Walker had 12 points, seven rebounds and six assists for the
Hornets, who wrapped up their four-game road trip with a decisive win
over the Western Conference's worst team. Charlotte cruised even with
four of its top eight scorers out due to injury.
 
#- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Game flow URL: http://www.popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20160131&game=CHALAL
Play-by-play from http://www.nba.com/games/20160131/CHALAL/gameinfo.html#nbaGIPlay
 
Los Angeles Lakers ( V: Charlotte Hornets (23-25)
Start of 1st Quarter
(12:00) Jump Ball Hibbert vs Hawes (Lin gains possession)
11:40 [CHA 3-0] V: M Williams 3pt Shot: Made (3 PTS) Assist: Kidd-Gilchrist (1 AST)
11:26 H: Hibbert Turnaround Hook Shot: Missed
11:21 V: Hawes Rebound (Off:0 Def:1)
11:13 [CHA 6-0] V: Walker 3pt Shot: Made (3 PTS) Assist: Hawes (1 AST)
10:57 H: Bryant Jump Shot: Missed
10:56 V: M Williams Rebound (Off:0 Def:1)
10:53 H: Clarkson Foul: Shooting (1 PF) (2 FTA) (B Adams)
10:53 V: Kidd-Gilchrist Free Throw 1 of 2 Missed
10:53 V: Team Rebound
10:53 [CHA 7-0] V: Kidd-Gilchrist Free Throw 2 of 2 (1 PTS)
10:40 V: Lin Foul: Shooting (1 PF) (2 FTA) (D Stafford)
10:40 [LAL 1-7] H: Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS)
10:40 [LAL 2-7] H: Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS)
10:27 V: Lin 3pt Shot: Missed
10:24 H: Bryant Rebound (Off:0 Def:1)
10:07 [LAL 4-7] H: Randle Hook Shot: Made (2 PTS)
09:47 V: Hawes 3pt Shot: Missed
09:47 H: Team Rebound
09:47 V: M Williams Foul: Loose Ball (1 PF) (B Adams)
09:34 H: Clarkson Jump Shot: Missed
09:32 V: Kidd-Gilchrist Rebound (Off:0 Def:1)
09:26 V: M Williams 3pt Shot: Missed
09:23 H: Bryant Rebound (Off:0 Def:2)
09:12 H: Bryant Turnaround Bank shot: Missed
09:08 V: Kidd-Gilchrist Rebound (Off:0 Def:2)
09:05 [CHA 9-4] V: Kidd-Gilchrist Running Layup Shot: Made (3 PTS)
08:58 V: Kidd-Gilchrist Foul: Personal Block (1 PF) (D Stafford)
08:51 [LAL 7-9] H: Clarkson 3pt Shot: Made (3 PTS) Assist: Bryant (1 AST)
$Bill <news@todbe.com>: Jan 31 06:33PM -0800

# Thinking with all the injuries that LA has a chance for a W.
 
100 95
$Bill <news@todbe.com>: Jan 31 12:59PM -0800

NBA: http://www.nba.com/games/20160131/CHALAL/gameinfo.html
 
Hornets-Lakers Preview (20160131)
By ALAN FERGUSON Posted Jan 31 2016 12:16AM
 
In a matchup with a young team on the rise, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist's return
wasn't enough to get the banged-up Charlotte Hornets back in the win
column.
 
A meeting with the Western Conference's worst team that is in the midst of
a nine-game losing streak appears more favorable.
 
The Hornets try to send the Los Angeles Lakers into a tie for their longest
losing streak in franchise history Sunday night at Staples Center.
 
Kidd-Gilchrist played for the first time since his shoulder surgery in
October on Friday against Portland. He registered 13 points and seven
rebounds in 33-plus minutes in a 109-91 loss as the Trail Blazers won their
third straight and seventh in nine games.
 
"Being on the floor for the first time was really fun, but it's not about
me, it's about the team and finding some wins," he said. "I'm happy to be
back to say the least."
 
While they got Kidd-Gilchrist back, the Hornets might have some missing
players for the finale of their four-game Western trip. Nicolas Batum is
expected to sit out because of more trouble with a sprained right toe.
 
Batum has missed seven games because of that injury in 2016 and sat out
three straight until a 102-73 drubbing to Utah on Wednesday. He had three
points on 1-of-11 shooting and eight assists in nearly 40 minutes Friday
against his former team.
 
Cody Zeller (shoulder) and Al Jefferson (knee) are also expected to sit
out. Jeremy Lin (ankle) and Jeremy Lamb (toe), who has missed the last four
games, are considered questionable.
 
"We're just trying to come in here and do what we can to win," forward
Tyler Hansbrough said. "That's our only focus. I know we have a lot of guys
out and our team is hurting in ways. We're just trying to step up and do
what we can to win."
 
Even being short-handed, the Hornets (22-25) might have enough to get past
the Lakers (9-40), who have been outscored by an average of 16.6 points
during their nine-game slide.
 
Los Angeles has experienced only one skid that's gone longer, when it
dropped its final 10 games in 1993-94. The Lakers couldn't take advantage
of a Los Angeles Clippers team that was missing star Blake Griffin in a
105-93 loss Friday.
 
"We put a lot of work in and losing isn't fun," guard Jordan Clarkson said.
 
While Kobe Bryant sat out with an ailing right shoulder and Achilles,
Julius Randle had a career-high 23 points and 14 rebounds. Bryant is
considered questionable and second-leading scorer Lou Williams (illness) is
listed as probable.
 
Bryant scored a team-best 20 points despite missing 15 of 20 shots in a
108-98 loss in Charlotte on Dec. 28. The 18-time All-Star, who is averaging
8.1 points in his last eight games, hasn't been held below 20 in his last
nine matchups with the Hornets, the franchise that drafted him 13th overall
in 1996.
 
Kemba Walker had 38 points for Charlotte, which is 2-12 on the road since
Dec. 16, with both victories coming in overtime.
 
Charlotte has suffered back-to-back defeats since opening its trip Monday
with a double-overtime win against Sacramento.
 
Walker has a combined 29 points in the past two games after averaging 32.6
in his previous five. He had a career-best 52 in a double-overtime victory
over Utah on Jan. 18.
 
The Hornets have won back-to-back games against the Lakers after losing six
of seven but have dropped five of six road contests in the series.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for alt.sports.hockey.nhl.mtl-canadiens@googlegroups.com - 18 updates in 7 topics

The Mad Ape <chiefape@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:04PM -0800

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 4:34:46 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
> pulled that off but to see him show up after a few years off and pot a
> few goals and wake this team up? I'd laugh my ass off. Of course he'd
> never pull it off but if anyone was able to it would be him.
 
Would probably be their best player down the stretch!
 
TMA
jbrontey@yahoo.com: Jan 31 08:12PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 6:04:58 PM UTC-7, The Mad Ape wrote:
> > never pull it off but if anyone was able to it would be him.
 
> Would probably be their best player down the stretch!
 
> TMA
 
I played in a tournament against Kovalev last year. His hands were so ridiculously good it was impossible to do anything against him, but he looked like an "ex"-NHLer. I can't imagine how good Semin would have been, and he has no business on NHL ice right now.
 
The year before I actually played on a team with Tikkanen in Turku. He was only 49 but he looks about 70. He wouldn't help anybody right now either! Super cool guy to play with though; we were Canadians playing against Finns and they treated him like he was made of glass. I think he had 5 goals.
Gerry <gerry14@hotmail.com>: Jan 31 08:07PM -0800

So along the lines (hopefully) of some of the things we have been suggesting, Lessio and Andrighetto are called up. Auditions for next season beginning.
 
I think we sort of know Andrighetto's niche by now. He's got decent skill and decent jam, but is still kind of stuck in a rut as a player who ideally fills something like a 2nd line scoring winger role, but it remains questionable whether he can really score enough in the NHL to adequately fill that role. He's probably not a player who is suited to much role evolution. If he can't fit on a semi-scoring line, it's questionable whether he can make it. But I do think he has shown enough in his cameos that he has earned a chance to show more. What ultimately comes of it, I do not know... I would say I'm not particularly optimistic about his chances, but I do acknowledge that he has earned the viewing.
 
As for Lessio, I think he's a guy we might come to like. He's fast and has a little more size, and plays a pretty hard game. I don't know that he can ever be projected to score much, but in a bottom-6 role as an aggressive forechecker who uses speed to pressure the opposition, I could see him panning out. I'm glad we're taking a look at him, anyway.
 
They have to work in a look at Friberg too, IMHO. And surprisingly enough, Morgan Ellis seems to have resurrected his career arc to some extent this year... although our defense corps overfloweth so far, at some point it would be interesting to get a look at him. (Something else that is interesting is that the IceCaps have been healthy-scratching the newly-acquired Victor Bartley, despite all the talk about how he was supposed to be some double-top-secret target in our whole Tinordi/Scott trade fiasco).
 
l8r,
Gerry
The Mad Ape <chiefape@gmail.com>: Jan 31 04:11PM -0800

Hey MB are you watching the All Star game? John Scott scores two and is first star.
 
He has done more in 20 minutes than DD and Plecks have in over a month.
 
TMA
The Mad Ape <chiefape@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:21PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:11:33 PM UTC-4, The Mad Ape wrote:
> Hey MB are you watching the All Star game? John Scott scores two and is first star.
 
> He has done more in 20 minutes than DD and Plecks have in over a month.
 
> TMA
 
Can I call it or what? Called him MVP over an hour ago.
 
Bergy give this dude a spot in the lineup. He brings more than most players on the team!
 
TMA
Nyssa <Nyssa@flawlesslogic.com>: Jan 31 09:05PM -0500

The Mad Ape wrote:
 
 
> Bergy give this dude a spot in the lineup. He brings more
> than most players on the team!
 
> TMA
 
GMTA, Ape.
 
I wanted two things from this gimmicky All Star game:
 
1) for PK to do good, which he did with his game winner
 
and
 
2) John Scott to do good and win the MVP (screw YOU Bettman!)
 
So why is the All Star Captain and MVP rotting on the Rock?
 
Bring him back up to Montreal; he's better than at least
half of the pluggers we have who don't seem to care about
actually doing anything on the ice.
 
As for the game, I really got tired of 'em trying to convince
the audience how amazingly wonderful the 3 on 3 concept was.
 
I still say it's just a gimmick and show more desperation
than cleverness on the league's part. But I know I'll lose
that argument just like I lost the one about the stupid
trapezoid.
 
Nyssa, who realized years ago that Bettman's administration
cares nothing for the true fans and plays to the lowest
uncommon denominator of the casual fan who only watches if
nothing else is on
The Mad Ape <chiefape@gmail.com>: Jan 31 06:16PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 10:06:33 PM UTC-4, Nyssa wrote:
> cares nothing for the true fans and plays to the lowest
> uncommon denominator of the casual fan who only watches if
> nothing else is on
 
I actually though that this All Star game had some sense of competitive edge to it. Sure the contact was minimal but they were being competitive. A lot better than what I've seen before.
 
I watched because I needed my fix and I had to see PK and Scott. PK as the Black Jagar last night was awesome. A bunch of us started sing that 'Moves like Jagger er Jagar' song at a little partay at my place last night.
 
TMA
Gerry <gerry14@hotmail.com>: Jan 31 07:48PM -0800

My kids were into it, and I ended up watching. I think it was pretty good, although for the most part the broadcasting distracted and detracted from what otherwise had decent potential for entertainment.
 
The NHL re-spun the Scott issue pretty successfully, at least. They really messed it up out of the gate, and our complicity in it still rankles, but at least all's well that ends well, eh? Fairy tale ending.
 
Perhaps we can indeed even remove some of the stench on our side by taking the fairy tale ending to the next logical step, promoting Scott and letting him serve as the "team Mascot" as the team plays out the string in this lost season. Give us a little distraction from the ineptitude. Back when it all came down, I thought maybe they actually did want Scott for "mascot" purposes moreso than just acting out of toadyism. The Habs can thus take a re-spin of the Scott wheel too, just like the NHL did.
 
All that said, no, he's still not a viable NHL player, despite all these good vibrations. All reports from St.John's are full of lamentations that he's wasting space in the lineup while prospects like Gregoire sit, or that Fournier was actually a better player.
 
Still, we might as well ride whatever good vibes we can get atm. Recall Scott, send De La Rose back down. What does it really matter anyway?
 
l8r,
Gerry
jbrontey@yahoo.com: Jan 31 07:56PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 7:06:33 PM UTC-7, Nyssa wrote:
> cares nothing for the true fans and plays to the lowest
> uncommon denominator of the casual fan who only watches if
> nothing else is on
 
I thought that was the best All-Star game I've ever seen. Even take away the whole John Scott show, there was was defense, backchecking, a couple of slappers, some slick dangles and the final game was 1-0! It's probably that you just can't coast around 3 on 3 combined with the close game/$1million they are playing for that actually made it look like they were trying. It makes all the difference. I'd watch it next year for sure.
Nyssa <Nyssa@flawlesslogic.com>: Jan 31 12:12PM -0500

Jim Bauch wrote:
 
> me, the amateur, to see the obvious deficiencies in this
> coach."
 
> Jim
 
Bravo!! <applause>
 
Beautifully written. I can only hope that the same thoughts
are winding their way through Molson's brain right now.
 
The season is toast, but at least the remainder should be
used to give the kids some NHL level game experience to
build on for next season and those to come. Lay it on
the line to MT that these kids PLAY, not sit or eat popcorn.
Even if they make a mistake occasionally. It's the only
way they will learn.
 
Ditto with Chucky at center with decent wingers who can do
more than chase the play or stand around watching.
 
I agree wholeheartedly about Prust. The lack of strong
leadership in the room is painfully obvious, especially
with the absence of the other leader, Price on a daily
and game time basis. What we got in return...the less
said the better.
 
And I'm still pissed off that we lost the potential that
Sekac showed and got DSP who is showing zero potential.
 
Now to try to shrug off what awaits us for the rest of
the season and think of better, Therrein-free days to come.
 
Oh, and if we do end up with Matthews or another high pick,
MT HAS to be gone or the kid will be wasted just like the
others until MT has "made a better person of him." <gag>
 
Nyssa, who hopes there will be a brighter future on the
horizon come this fall
Gerry <gerry14@hotmail.com>: Jan 31 10:09AM -0800

Great posts by Marty, Mike, and Jim, for sure. Well grounded in practical reality. But I think if we really take some of those practical approaches, it does still hurt us. This team is maybe a week or two away from really having mathematical certainty that there is not even a miracle that can salvage this seaosn. In which case, I think (as Nyssa points out) that a really high priority has to be the The Future. And The Future has several components.
 
Most immediately, there is the trade deadline. They have to take a Future-oriented approach to the trade deadline. They have to move veteran/UFA elements and bring in more Futures, whether draft picks, prospects or young players. It's a modern reality when you are a team outside the playoff picture, it's the one chance you really get to transform lead into gold (albeit "possible" gold). Parity means fewer Sellers. Teams which do Sell, are never going to find a better market than the trade deadline. The team absolutely MUST approach it in the proper frame of mind.
 
Then there is the "finish out the season" component. I argue that there should be no scenario which allows Therrien to continue coaching as a "lame duck". The team has to evaluate the potential of young players. If possible, it would be advantageous to give any prospective new coach a headstart on next season by getting some time this season. I would not allow any latitude for not making the coaching change. Possibly retaining Therrien gives us a higher draft pick. Maybe. But everything else about his continued presence screams futility, and as Habs' boss, I simply would not stand for that. There is no face-saving or alternative scenario which I would alllow which includes Therrien in the "finish out the season" component. There are various ways to address it, per some of the other posters, but to me, I could not allow any situation which leaves Therrien in place. Playing youth and evaluating young talent in the right environment is simply too important.
 
And then for the early-summer... the Free Agency period is of paramount importance to roster building in the modern NHL. Depending on how our trade deadline went, we could be very well-positioned to be significant players on the UFA market. There can be absolutely no allowance for leaving any uncertainty or negative energy swirling around the franchise during this period. We have to be an attractive location for potential UFAs.
 
The Future has to be paramount, and I don't think the franchise can afford to yield to "saving face" or any other compromises. There should REALLY be No Excuses allowed.
 
l8r,
Gerry
TheMadApe <chiefape@gmail.com>: Jan 31 02:41PM -0400

Gerry wrote:
 
> The Future has to be paramount, and I don't think the franchise can afford to yield to "saving face" or any other compromises. There should REALLY be No Excuses allowed.
 
> l8r,
> Gerry
 
Gerry,
 
One thing to consider in any players movements will be the cap for next
year. Because of the shit Canadian $ I would assume that it might have
the potential to bring it down. If that is the case there could be a lot
of teams trying to do the impossible big salary dump.
 
I do think anyone foresaw the Canadian $ shitting the bed when the
NHL-NHLPA agreement was signed.
 
I will admit that I have not looked at this in any great detail but I
would have to think it is a very negative effect on teams.
 
On a bit of a side note... how does the absence of Canadian Teams in the
post-season play into league revenue?
 
TMA
gorgofromns@gmail.com: Jan 31 12:51PM -0800

The cap is all in US$ is it not? Therefore the value of the Canadian dollar is immaterial other than the fact Canadian teams assume a bigger salary bill when the roster total is converted from US to Canadian dollars. Probably not a big factor for rich teams like Mtl and TO but a bastard for gge small market teams. This isn't even mentioning the higher taxes paid in socialist Canada.
Marty <martytest2004@hotmail.com>: Jan 31 06:10PM -0600

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:51:24 -0800, gorgofromns wrote:
 
> dollars. Probably not a big factor for rich teams like Mtl and TO but a
> bastard for gge small market teams. This isn't even mentioning the
> higher taxes paid in socialist Canada.
 
The cap is based on the league's revenue in US dollars, so all the
Canadian teams are going to show a BIG drop in revenue, which lowers the
total league revenue a lot. When the dollar was soaring, it allowed the
cap to jump by leaps and bounds. Now, the opposite will happen.
Gerry <gerry14@hotmail.com>: Jan 31 07:39PM -0800

Well, the HRR I think uses daily exchange rates, at least, so in real-time, the decline of the CDN$ is at least slightly mitigated as it plunges by having been a bit higher earlier on in the season, and last summer. Still, there are some estimates that peg the CDN portion of HRR as high as 40% of the NHL. i.e. 7 teams out of 30 (plus our various broadcast contracts, etc) really do play a pretty significant role in determining the final HRR. Estimates I've read of what the effect is going to be, including pro-rating the loonie dropping to $0.60, still don't drop us _below_ the current cap. But we could very well have a flat/flat-ish cap for next season. (The 5% escalator is almost always automatically included nowadays).
 
Depending on how market-savvy individual teams were, they may have "hedged" some of their contract expenditures. Apparently that's something they can do by locking in deals at essentially an insured exachange rate, and so converting payrolls to US$ under a declining exchange rate may not impact teams on their own bottom line as drastically as one might fear.
 
Nevertheless, it is certain that the declining loonie is going to have an impact. Maybe not dire, or at least, not immediately dire. But to me, that just means it's all the more important to play this trade deadline as intelligently as possible. Create cap space where possible, move low efficiency contracts if you can. In the summer, you still offer the same $US to prospective UFAs as other teams do. Granted, higher taxation is always an issue for us.
 
Buyers may not wish to take on our low efficiency contracts... but not every team is capped out, even allowing for zero growth on the cap. There are teams in the hunt that have projected space, teams which have their own low efficiency expiring deals, etc.
 
Anyway, I am not guaranteeing that we can pan for gold successfully at this trade deadline, who knows, the market may conspire against us, but regardless, it should be the objective.
 
l8r,
Gerry
TheMadApe <chiefape@gmail.com>: Jan 31 01:16PM -0400

Gerry wrote:
 
> (Although of course, who knows if the braintrust can really see that or not).
 
> l8r,
> Gerry
 
.... "But what are the odds of that. Realistically..."
 
This team is playing so bad and management is so fucked up right now
that they will probably find a way to fuck themselves out of a good pick
this off-season.
 
TMA
gorgofromns@gmail.com: Jan 31 09:00AM -0800

Will never happen but Price should once again get the League MVP. It is abundantly so obvious now that Price is by far, THE most important player to his team. Going from solid 1st place overall to 10 points behind the 29th place team since his injury... what more evidence does one need? Of course it won't happen, but it should.
gorgofromns@gmail.com: Jan 31 08:43AM -0800

Whatever happened to Bornival? Is he no longer Habs property? I would think he at least is worth a mention. Perhaps he's doing time for child molestation.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.sports.hockey.nhl.mtl-canadiens+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 21 updates in 3 topics

jim brown <jimbrowndoc@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 03:24PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:11:17 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
> The difference is that when you criticize Hillary's dishonest statements I don't respond with:
 
> "the right's incessant need to tear down anyone who dares to have a different view of America and what it stands for"
 
 
 
What you do is worse...(*You as in the left)...you support her and VOTE for her and defend her every move. Kyle put his life on the line...hell, GAVE his life for his country and after he dies he gets criticized by the left for being a bit abnormal in the mind(you do what he did, then come back here to be picked apart)...Kyle isn't running for anything and what he did with his life DESERVES the respect he's being given. Hilary has been a lying cheating parasitic thief on every level and the left blindly says BAAAAA
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: Jan 31 06:27PM -0500

On 1/31/2016 6:24 PM, jim brown wrote:
 
> What you do is worse...(*You as in the left)...you support her and VOTE for her and defend her every move. Kyle put his life on the line...hell, GAVE his life for his country and after he dies he gets criticized by the left for being a bit abnormal in the mind(you do what he did, then come back here to be picked apart)...Kyle isn't running for anything and what he did with his life DESERVES the respect he's being given. Hilary has been a lying cheating parasitic thief on every level and the left blindly says BAAAAA
 
IAWTP
"Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger" <damonhynes@gmail.com>: Jan 31 03:56PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:27:29 PM UTC-6, Ken Olson wrote:
 
> > What you do is worse...(*You as in the left)...you support her and VOTE for her and defend her every move. Kyle put his life on the line...hell, GAVE his life for his country and after he dies he gets criticized by the left for being a bit abnormal in the mind(you do what he did, then come back here to be picked apart)...Kyle isn't running for anything and what he did with his life DESERVES the respect he's being given. Hilary has been a lying cheating parasitic thief on every level and the left blindly says BAAAAA
 
> IAWTP
 
Yowsah.
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jan 31 04:20PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 6:24:24 PM UTC-5, jim brown wrote:
> > The difference is that when you criticize Hillary's dishonest statements I don't respond with:
 
> > "the right's incessant need to tear down anyone who dares to have a different view of America and what it stands for"
 
> What you do is worse...(*You as in the left)...you support her and VOTE for her and defend her every move. Kyle put his life on the line...hell, GAVE his life for his country and after he dies he gets criticized by the left for being a bit abnormal in the mind(you do what he did, then come back here to be picked apart)...Kyle isn't running for anything and what he did with his life DESERVES the respect he's being given. Hilary has been a lying cheating parasitic thief on every level and the left blindly says BAAAAA
 
Actually "the left" is having a love affair with Bernie Sanders at the moment. And if you think Hillary doesn't get criticized by the left, you are either sadly mistaken or willfully blind. There are a lot of things about Hillary that are bothersome. But most of us have decided those things aren't as bothersome as the idea of Trump, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, or Huckabee in the White House. It's a trade-off that you make in the real world of real politics. Just like on your side there are things that bother you about your politicians if you're honest but they don't bother you as much as the idea of Clinton or Sanders in the White House so you're willing to overlook them.
 
I mean I can easily turn this around. Hypothetical, it's Clinton vs Trump in November. Who gets your vote?
dotslashderek@gmail.com: Jan 31 04:38PM -0800

Jesus, jim... do you even read this blog? It's pretty much more or less an ongoing rant about how progressive thinking is equal parts stupidity and evul and in desperate need of being rooted out and snuffed because it threatens conservative American exceptionalism.
 
Please to be stepping off of that tallish horse.
Some dued <theodoreward@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:03PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:02:14 PM UTC-6, Ken Olson wrote:
> > I'd live amongst looters in a heartbeat over someone who thinks murdering anonymous humans from afar is a "nice fantasy"?
 
> Murder is unjustified, if they're looting, it's justified. Hope you like
> your neighbors.
 
Okay, even if it IS justified (which it clearly isn't either legally or morally) any person who fantasizes about being able to legally shoot people is deviant freak and someone I for one don't want to be around.
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:16PM -0800

> Jesus, jim... do you even read this blog? It's pretty much more or less an ongoing rant about how progressive thinking is equal parts stupidity and evul and in desperate need of being rooted out and snuffed because it threatens conservative American exceptionalism.
 
> Please to be stepping off of that tallish horse.
 
Keep in mind he's in Iowa which is probably reaching peak political saturation and fervor right about now and tomorrow. Give it a week after the caucuses, he'll probably come back to earth.
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Feb 01 02:06AM

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:17:34 -0800 (PST), xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>turned out that they owned houses behind the Kmart that had also been destr=
>oyed and they were looking for their possessions that had been blown into t=
>he rubble by the tornado.
 
I really like the way that starts.... Let me tell you a little
story!!!!
 
I taught Bear Bryant everything he knew and that money doesn't belong
to Bill Gates - I loaned it to him.
 
Hugh
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Feb 01 02:09AM

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:03:06 -0800 (PST), Some dued
 
>> Murder is unjustified, if they're looting, it's justified. Hope you like
>> your neighbors.
 
>Okay, even if it IS justified (which it clearly isn't either legally or morally) any person who fantasizes about being able to legally shoot people is deviant freak and someone I for one don't want to be around.
 
You're safe - you're not worth shooting.
 
Hugh
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Feb 01 02:11AM

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:11:13 -0800 (PST), xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>The difference is that when you criticize Hillary's dishonest statements I don't respond with:
 
>"the right's incessant need to tear down anyone who dares to have a different view of America and what it stands for"
 
>My view of what America stands for isn't so delicate that it can't stand up to others pointing out political lying or boastful fabulism by people on my "side".
 
Your stand is really a squat. Now pee!
 
Hugh
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Feb 01 02:20AM

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:20:59 -0800 (PST), xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>Actually "the left" is having a love affair with Bernie Sanders at the mome=
>nt.
 
He's promishing more help for the worthless than Hillary - it figures.
 
> But most of us have decided those things aren'=
>t as bothersome as the idea of Trump, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, or Huckabee in=
> the White House.
 
Thus proving that stupid can't be cured.
 
>I mean I can easily turn this around. Hypothetical, it's Clinton vs Trump =
>in November. Who gets your vote?
 
Trump - I don't believe in assassination yet.
 
Hugh
Eric Ramon <ramon.eric@gmail.com>: Jan 31 06:38PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:24:24 PM UTC-8, jim brown wrote:
 
> Kyle put his life on the line...hell, GAVE his life for his country
 
he didn't give his life for his country. He served his country in the military and then got shot here in the US at a shooting range. Two different things.
jim brown <jimbrowndoc@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 06:56PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 6:21:01 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
 
> > What you do is worse...(*You as in the left)...you support her and VOTE for her and defend her every move. Kyle put his life on the line...hell, GAVE his life for his country and after he dies he gets criticized by the left for being a bit abnormal in the mind(you do what he did, then come back here to be picked apart)...Kyle isn't running for anything and what he did with his life DESERVES the respect he's being given. Hilary has been a lying cheating parasitic thief on every level and the left blindly says BAAAAA
 
> Actually "the left" is having a love affair with Bernie Sanders at the moment. And if you think Hillary doesn't get criticized by the left, you are either sadly mistaken or willfully blind. There are a lot of things about Hillary that are bothersome. But most of us have decided those things aren't as bothersome as the idea of Trump, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, or Huckabee in the White House. It's a trade-off that you make in the real world of real politics. Just like on your side there are things that bother you about your politicians if you're honest but they don't bother you as much as the idea of Clinton or Sanders in the White House so you're willing to overlook them.
 
> I mean I can easily turn this around. Hypothetical, it's Clinton vs Trump in November. Who gets your vote?
 
 
 
Which of the Repubs are about to be (or should be if we had a decent justice dept) under indictment? She shouldn't even be in the running...You have a decent candidate that has been largely made fun of and ignored(no, not sanders)...if the Dems hadn't basically anointed Hill in 2012, you might have had some others. So, no, all things are NOT equal.
 
 
 
Neither gets my vote...and that's a promise.
jim brown <jimbrowndoc@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 07:00PM -0800

> Jesus, jim... do you even read this blog? It's pretty much more or less an ongoing rant about how progressive thinking is equal parts stupidity and evul and in desperate need of being rooted out and snuffed because it threatens conservative American exceptionalism.
 
> Please to be stepping off of that tallish horse.
 
 
 
No...didn't read it. I read what Hugh wrote...and about two sentences in I predicted to myself that Kyle would be criticized in short order.
jim brown <jimbrowndoc@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 07:03PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:38:19 PM UTC-6, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:24:24 PM UTC-8, jim brown wrote:
 
> > Kyle put his life on the line...hell, GAVE his life for his country
 
> he didn't give his life for his country. He served his country in the military and then got shot here in the US at a shooting range. Two different things.
 
 
 
Yeah...if you take that literally...the fact that he returned again and again to the battlefield while his home life fell apart, then got shot while giving back at home refutes what you wrote.
xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com>: Jan 31 07:12PM -0800

He was shot at the range by a fellow vet he was helping with PTSD. I think that qualifies as serving his country.
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: Jan 31 09:12PM -0600

> about your politicians if you're honest but they don't bother you
> as much as the idea of Clinton or Sanders in the White House so
> you're willing to overlook them.
 
What wows me is you equating Cruz and Fiorina, and even Carson and
Huckabee, with Trump. Trump is not a Republican, and he is a clown
to boot. He is completely unacceptable on many levels. Cruz and
Fiorina are head and shoulders above him in not only in integrity
but in ability. (Of course Huckabee, Fiorina, and Carson have zero
chance of getting the nomination. Cruz has an fair shot.)
 
> I mean I can easily turn this around. Hypothetical, it's Clinton vs
> Trump in November. Who gets your vote?
 
Neither. They are both thoroughly loathsome. I don't vote in that case.
 
Luckily, I don't think it will happen. I think it will come down to
Rubio and Clinton (if she lasts). If it is that matchup, I like the
Republican chances.
 
--
"The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good
ending, then having the two as close together as possible."
-- George Burns
YosemiteSam <YosemiteSam@byteme.com>: Jan 31 05:42PM -0800

Should do well in the Little Haiti section of Miami
 
http://fxn.ws/1JIXeJE
 
~YS~
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Jan 31 01:20PM

An excerpt from a longer speech...
 
One of America's greatest heroes is charging the commander in chief
with deliberate sabotage of the nation's armed forces.
 
The serious accusation leveled against Barack Obama comes from retired
Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, who
told WND bluntly, "Obama loathes the military."
 
"His goal is to reduce the military to impotence," Brady said in an
interview. "That way, during his reign, which, thank God, is almost
over, he could point to an emasculated military and say he didn't have
the capability to [do] anything about it. If it came to a
confrontation, I don't think he would fight."
 
Brady explained Obama "changed the ethos of the military" by lowering
standards and moral values. He specifically identified the removal of
the bans on open homosexuality and women in combat positions as
destructive.
 
"It's gone from a masculine-oriented outfit to a girly-man kind of an
outfit," Brady said.
 
Posted by Hugh
"the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <agavinsmith@gmail.com>: Jan 31 06:25AM -0800

You can't blame Obama (solely) for this. He is part of a long line of people attempting to transform the military, and Western culture, in general, to a pacifism at any cost, for any reason.
 
On the flip side, Obama has allowed drone strikes throughout the Middle East in an aggressive posture against against radical Islamists. That is a method that works somewhat. We've proven that significantly higher numbers of troops in a region, or boots on the ground, doesn't necessarily give us a strategic or tactical advantage. Anytime there's what is essentially a civilian army, hidden among the population and you move into an occupation army stance - without first completely and utterly destroying the will of the people, you are going to suffer highly inflammatory casualties. History is full of examples.
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): Jan 31 03:04PM

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 06:25:48 -0800 (PST), "the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com"
 
>You can't blame Obama (solely) for this. He is part of a long line of peopl=
>e attempting to transform the military, and Western culture, in general, to=
> a pacifism at any cost, for any reason.=20
 
I accept "solely". Au contraire it has been his "watch" for the past 7
years and the destruction of reasonable and logical military standards
during that period of time are his fault. He has expanded SNAFU
exponentially.
 
>On the flip side, Obama has allowed drone strikes throughout the Middle Eas=
>t in an aggressive posture against against radical Islamists.
 
Give him a brief round of applause for not screwing up everything.
Terrorist used to be the bogeyman under my bed so I couldn't go to
sleep.
 
Hugh
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.football.college+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Paul <quiller123@gmail.com>: Jan 31 07:32PM -0700

On 1/31/2016 11:35 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
>> YOU KNOW WHO I'M TALKING ABOUT, DUMB-FUCK!
 
> Oh, you mean Eddie Van Lendl?
 
NO, YNGWIE MALMSTEEN, SHIT-WIT!!
 
GET SOME MUSICAL TASTE, BUTT-FUCKER!!!
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jan 31 08:56PM -0500


> She's been, yeah, amazing. Handled everything unbelievably well. Yeah, I have to thank her for allowing me to play and sort of stay here with everything that was going on.
 
> But, yeah, it was tough.
 
> http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2016-01-31/andy_murray_310116.html
 
I don't understand what is very difficult here, okay her father is
clearly very ill and he is back to UK, not a good thing but it's
clear that this is his job and he has to complete it, even the
ill man wouldn't want him to quit the tournament.
 
If his wife was putting all this pressure on him then it's not a
good thing to do.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 06:05PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:56:04 PM UTC-5, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> ill man wouldn't want him to quit the tournament.
 
> If his wife was putting all this pressure on him then it's not a
> good thing to do.
 
Don't be stupid! What if his father-in-law died or was in fact seriously ill? Of course Murray should have left the tournament under those conditions. He's a human being. Family comes first. Kudos to Murray.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jan 31 06:26PM -0800

Just another lame excuse for loss. Her father in law did not die. He is okay now. No excuse for getting mauled in the final.
 
If he was so bothered about it he would have lost earlier.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jan 31 06:28PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 6:06:01 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > If his wife was putting all this pressure on him then it's not a
> > good thing to do.
 
> Don't be stupid! What if his father-in-law died or was in fact seriously ill? Of course Murray should have left the tournament under those conditions. He's a human being. Family comes first. Kudos to Murray.
 
If, God forbid, his FIL had passed away, then, it's a very different situation. But thanking Kim for allowing him to play ? Really ? Like he can't think for himself or take his own decisions ?
"Gerrit" <sad@for.you>: Feb 01 10:26AM +0800

"Shakes" wrote in message
news:e0c6a40b-9529-4646-a8b3-2a47177c34f1@googlegroups.com...
 
Some really good insights about what has helped him in his growth as a
champion. And I think it applies to anybody, anywhere.
 
http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2016-01-31/novak_djokovic_310116.html
 
Q. What are the two or three things that have been at the core of this
incredible rise and success? What has been the key in your mind?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: I can't pick one thing and say that was the secret of
success, even though I know people would like to know or get something out
of me that would explain this. But it's not that easy. If it's that easy and
simple and say one or two things, then I think many people would do it.
 
It's actually many years of obviously commitment, hard work, sacrifice and
dedication, not just to training sessions, you know, the things that you are
obliged to do as a tennis player, but also to a lifestyle. Trying to devote
most of your time, energy, thought to make yourself the best person and the
best player possible.
 
There's something I've found out in the previous years in my career is that
you can't separate yourself professionally and privately. You're the same
person. So all this emotions that are maybe trapped, you know, that occur in
your private life, the issues, the problems that we all face, you need to
surface them. You need to find a solution. You need to face, encounter these
particular issues privately in order to maximize your potential as a player,
as well.
 
In the end of the day, in these particular matches when it goes down to very
few points, when you're challenged in every aspect of your being, if there
is something under the surface, it will come out and it will play against
you. It will be your worst enemy.
 
I mean, I'm just speaking out very frank now out of my own experience. Of
course, everybody's different. This is not a formula for everybody's
success. I'm just saying it's something that helped me to understand how to
get better and how to evolve.
 
*************************************************************
 
There a few "enfants terrible" who could take a leaf out his book.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:23PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 4:38:10 PM UTC-5, Darkfalz wrote:
 
> > Murray was lucky to win against Raonic.
 
> Raonic in that form and if he hadn't been injured probably would have defeated everybody with the exception of Djokovic. I think Raonic would have probably defeated Federer too if they met in the final.
 
I don't think Raonic would've defeated Fed, should they have met.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 05:49PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:23:44 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
 
> > > Murray was lucky to win against Raonic.
 
> > Raonic in that form and if he hadn't been injured probably would have defeated everybody with the exception of Djokovic. I think Raonic would have probably defeated Federer too if they met in the final.
 
> I don't think Raonic would've defeated Fed, should they have met.
 
Right. Just like most people thought Cilic wouldn't beat Fed at the USO.
I think Raonic was zoning and I think he may have blasted Fed off the court in four.
 
We'll never know and will have to wait to see their future matches and if Raonic can stay healthy.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:51PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:49:29 PM UTC-5, Court_1 wrote:
 
> Right. Just like most people thought Cilic wouldn't beat Fed at the USO.
> I think Raonic was zoning and I think he may have blasted Fed off the court in four.
 
> We'll never know and will have to wait to see their future matches and if Raonic can stay healthy.
 
Raonic II is impressive indeed!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 05:55PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:51:59 PM UTC-5, Guypers wrote:
> > I think Raonic was zoning and I think he may have blasted Fed off the court in four.
 
> > We'll never know and will have to wait to see their future matches and if Raonic can stay healthy.
 
> Raonic II is impressive indeed!
 
Right? You're pretty good at being able to pick out winners of matches. Don't you think, the Raonic you saw at the AO 2016 would have had a good chance vs Federer?
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jan 31 06:07PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > I don't think Raonic would've defeated Fed, should they have met.
 
> Right. Just like most people thought Cilic wouldn't beat Fed at the USO.
> I think Raonic was zoning and I think he may have blasted Fed off the court > in four.
 
Well, they play completely different styles. For a S/V player to take Fed out in a best-of-5 in the F of a slam (at least outside of grass), he has to be a really good player who's zoned in on the day. And while Raonic is certainly playing S/V well, he's not at that level yet.
 
> We'll never know and will have to wait to see their future matches and if Raonic can stay healthy.
 
I can see it happen at Wim.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:50PM -0800

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 8:34:01 AM UTC+11, Darkfalz wrote:
> > > If not for the kid, maybe he would've won this.
 
> > There were two service faults by Djoker was missed by both line people as well as the chair umpire. One of those faults was also a double fault that could give Murray the break.
 
> I think they were both only first services. You can't really complain about this though as Murray was the beneficiary of several dodgy calls v Raonic whom he should have lost to.
 
Well, I thought umpire should have done a far better job in spotting those obvious mistakes by the lines people. I think one of the point was actually on the 2nd serve on the break point. I think Murray should have challenge both call instead he played on and lost the point and then starting complaining about these errors. I don't complain and it was up to Murray to complain immediately on these obvious errors.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 06:02PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:54:57 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
 
> He wasn't really playing worse than Djoker,
 
LOL! What match were you actually watching? Of course he was playing A LOT worse than Djokovic. Look at the stats--Djokovic on the left, Murray on the right:
 
1st Serve Points Won 74% (54 of 73) 68% (48 of 71)
2nd Serve Points Won 53% (20 of 38) 35% (14 of 40)
Break Points Won 42% (5 of 12) 33% (2 of 6)
Return Points Won 44% (49 of 111) 33% (37 of 111)
Unforced Errors 41 65
Winners 31 40
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:45PM -0800

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:35:40 AM UTC+11, Scott wrote:
> Is Djoker chasing Fed's slam count to be GOAT? Or is it possible to call Fed GOAT even after Djoker has more slams?
 
First Djoker needs to get the slam count greater than 17. And it is impossible to call Fed GOAT if Djoker has more slams. It is quite likely when reaching No. 18 Djoker would have the same number of FO, 1 fewer USO or 2 fewer Wimbledon but superior AO. I would still give him the nod as GOAT. As winning more than 4 slams at 3 different venue is quite a feat. Outside Federer Djoker would be the only 1 to have done it in the past 30 years.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jan 31 09:00PM -0500

> On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:35:40 AM UTC+11, Scott wrote:
>> Is Djoker chasing Fed's slam count to be GOAT? Or is it possible to call Fed GOAT even after Djoker has more slams?
 
> First Djoker needs to get the slam count greater than 17. And it is impossible to call Fed GOAT if Djoker has more slams. It is quite likely when reaching No. 18 Djoker would have the same number of FO, 1 fewer USO or 2 fewer Wimbledon but superior AO. I would still give him the nod as GOAT. As winning more than 4 slams at 3 different venue is quite a feat. Outside Federer Djoker would be the only 1 to have done it in the past 30 years.
 
It's funny, Federer had 15 slams before he turned 29 and won two
after turning 29.
But it's true that he had nadal and Djokovic that were younger and
dangerous stopping him after he turned 29, but who is there to
stop djokovic?
 
Also Nadal didn't just stop winning slams after reaching 28 he
stopped even winning slam matches in most of the
slams.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 05:23PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:14:41 PM UTC-5, DavidW wrote:
 
> And Graf wasn't a "sourpuss". She's just an introverted person whose warmth
> underneath was clearly evident when she was interviewed.
 
As I said earlier, the fanatic sees what he wants to see. I wasn't invested heavily in any of those players at the time and had no agenda. I could never warm to Graf. I found her cold and sour.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:23PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:22:13 PM UTC-8, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Look at this list someone assembled of bitchy WTA quotes--Serena and Hingis comprise most of it. Graf's comments are hardly more than a footnote.
 
Here's the link:
 
http://www.tennisforum.com/12-general-messages/591409-classic-bitchy-funny-wta-quotes-alternative-title-why-martina-hingis-legend.html
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 05:42PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:23:39 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > Look at this list someone assembled of bitchy WTA quotes--Serena and Hingis comprise most of it. Graf's comments are hardly more than a footnote.
 
> Here's the link:
 
> http://www.tennisforum.com/12-general-messages/591409-classic-bitchy-funny-wta-quotes-alternative-title-why-martina-hingis-legend.html
 
All three of them (Hingis, Serena and Graf) had their moments. None of those players were saints and all of those players had/have their fanatics whose words are completely irrelevant. The words of any of those people commenting have no meaning because all of them are fanatics of one player or another. All of those "bitchy" comments concerning one player mostly come from fanatics of other players. It's like a community of crazy people. You can't take any of those comments seriously and use them to prop up or disparage one player.
 
All I know is that I wasn't heavily invested in those days. I couldn't care less at the end of the day about Graf/Seles, etc and I always found it hard to warm up to Graf. Was she a brilliant player? Of course. But her whole personality/persona turned me off and I found her to be miserable.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 05:44PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:22:13 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > And Graf wasn't a "sourpuss". She's just an introverted person whose warmth
> > underneath was clearly evident when she was interviewed.
 
> Exactly.
 
But you two are Graf fanatics. You can't take fanatics seriously.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jan 31 05:52PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> > > underneath was clearly evident when she was interviewed.
 
> > Exactly.
 
> But you two are Graf fanatics. You can't take fanatics seriously.
 
First of all, you have your own set of biases like anyone. So why even pretend not to when everyone else see them? And I am a Graf fan, not a fanatic. Do you see me posting pictures and stories about Graf like Max does? My opinions about Graf are more muted than your gushing over Borg. So I am a fanatic, so are you.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Feb 01 01:34AM +0200

On 1.2.2016 0:54, TennisGuy wrote:
> Murray) has eleven slams and Murray just two.
 
> It has to do with talent, something you can't train for or buy at the
> candy store.
 
Djok hasn't always hit every ball on the line. He's had his problems
with the serve, his net game used to be close to horrible, ...
 
Whatever talent is, he surely must be talented. To me, he strikes more
as the result of polishing, polishing, polishing. Continually improving.
 
And I hope he's not done. He does practice S&V in his matches against
Ruben occasionally ...
 
--
"Hiss first. Listen later."
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 04:18PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 1:51:06 PM UTC-5, Shakes wrote:
 
> > It has nothing to do with that. Djokovic is much better. Murray peaked in 2012/13. He's never been the same after his back surgery.
 
> It's been more than 2 years since the surgery. I don't think that's the problem. It's his mind. He just doesn't have the will.
 
> BTW, You never seem to bring this up when it comes to Sampras ? He had a very similar problem - herniated disc in his back - and had to undergo a surgery too, and take two months off the game in 1999. He was a couple of years older than Murray (when Murray had his surgery).
 
You're wrong. He has the will big time but he isn't the same player he was before his back surgery for whatever reasons. He peaked in 2012/13. Different players peak at different times. More importantly, he isn't as good as Djokovic. Djokovic has distanced himself from Murray and is a couple of levels above Murray and no coach can change that. Djokovic has the ideal tennis body type and his freakish flexibility is something that helps him be the player he is with is ability to hit shots from any part of the court with insane depth and his ability to change direction on a dime. You can't teach that.
 
Murray can't beat Djokovic on the AO surface and none of the other Big Four members can. This should be obvious to all by now unless you're a masochist. Djokovic is too good on that surface. It will take a younger player probably with some power to come along and knock Djokovic off there. Wawrinka could do it but he's too inconsistent to rely on and he's getting up there in age. He's probably done with his slam winning.
 
As for your Sampras vs Murray comparison, Murray is no Sampras. They have completely different styles/strengths.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 31 04:28PM -0800

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:54:13 PM UTC-5, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> It has to do with talent, something you can't train for or buy at the
> candy store.
 
+1.
 
Especially on the AO surface, Murray can't beat Djokovic. Djokovic is too good there. Murray was trying to hit hard and blow Djokovic off the court but he could barely get the ball past Djokovic. You need a monster player with a monster serve and monster groundstrokes to knock Djokovic off there. You can't outgrind him these days. He's developed his game to perfection for medium slow surfaces.
 
On other surfaces such as grass, clay or faster hc, Murray has a better chance to beat Djokovic. The problem with Djokovic right now is he's improved his serve. So he has the best ROS, the best defense and now has one of the best serves. Not easy for the other Big Four members to beat at the moment as the other Big Four members have more weaknesses. When Murray was beating Djokovic at the USO and Wimbledon, Murray was a little bit more aggressive, but more importantly, Djokovic has improved all areas of his game since then.
TennisGuy <TennisGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jan 31 07:35PM -0500

On 1/31/2016 6:34 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> as the result of polishing, polishing, polishing. Continually improving.
 
> And I hope he's not done. He does practice S&V in his matches against
> Ruben occasionally ...
 
Yes, of course you are right. Djoker's game has improved over the years.
 
Djoker I was only good enough to win one slam.
 
Then Djoker II arrived a few years later. This was the Djoker who was
almost unbeatable in 2011.
 
Then Djoker III arrived. He was in a slump, only one slam a year <g>.
 
Now we have Djoker IV. New and improved once again.
 
In many ways even better than Djoker II. Better movement, better
serving, tougher mentally, other things as well.
 
So yes players can improve, but the raw talent that Djoker has always
had will always trump Murray's (even if Murray gets Lendl back) <g>.
 
 
--
7543 - the greatest GOAT formula of all time
DavidW <no@email.provided>: Feb 01 09:16AM +1100

On 1/02/2016 8:31 AM, Guypers wrote:
> http://snip.ly/ibOV#https://s3.amazonaws.com/jeffaudios/21_why_serena-lost-to-kerber-aussie_open_2016_01-31-16.mp3
 
The Aus commentators picked that up as well. Rennae Stubbs said that the
one shot that Serena doesn't have in her bag is a backhand volley, and
she really needed one to deal with Kerber's deadly dipping forehand
passes. Serena would have better off just staying back.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.