If you have to start a multi-million dollar ad campaign to convince people that the product you released 10 months ago doesn't suck, someone, somewhere in your organization fucked up. Either marketing, the launch team, who picked the background, whatever- but anytime you have to tell people that your product isn't as shitty as everyone seems to think it is, somewhere you've got a problem.
When I was a college instructor, I tried not to curse much in front of the class, but at some point, usually in the lab, I'd have to explain to them the concept of status when it comes to industrial equipment/ circuits.
"Basically," I would begin usually after we'd waved the smoke away, "You have three states of being- working, broken, and fucked up. Obviously, if it's working, you don't have to mess with it. Some folks will tell you there's variations of working, such as working well or barely working, but truth of the matter is, if it's working, you shouldn't mess with it until end of shift."
"We also have broken which can represent many different states, but typically what you're conveying with broken is you've got something that isn't working, but you know how to fix it and have what you need to fix the problem. It's a temporary state lasting anywhere from a few seconds to an hour, tops."
"Fucked up, however, is the third state. When you've got something that's fucked up, it's about to get interesting. Either you don't have the parts to fix it, you don't know how to fix it, it isn't repairable, or all of the above."
The point is this- often times curse words are overused and unnecessary in the English language. Sometimes however, they represent a concept or illustrate a point that actually is integral to explaining severity of a situation.
Some people make mistakes. Some people fuck up. There is a difference is all I'm saying.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
argument.contraction/expansion.hockey
With it being summer, everyone on the usual hockey sites are all bitching about the usual topics- relocation/ contraction of southern market teams. Here's my response to everyone in general-
The problem with contraction/ relocation is it doesn't make all that much sense.
Hockey has NEVER been a popular sport in the U.S. All this "dilution of talent" argument is crap. I've been watching hockey for nearly 20 years now and the sport, from my point of view anyway, isn't any bigger or smaller than it ever has been in the U.S. You could contract half the damn league and turn the remaining teams into all-star caliber teams and it still wouldn't be watched or carried by most media markets.
Relocation, frankly, is just as stupid. Fans, largely Canadian ones, love to point at teams like Nashville or Florida or Tampa and whine about how there is no team in Winniquehamiltonbecpeg. Like it hurts the league. Honestly, people. Do you really thinking moving the Preds to wherever is going to make any kind of real difference other than piss off the people in Nashville who actually do like hockey and make Jimmy RIM happy? Explain it to me, because from here it's a wash.
The problem with the NHL is it doesn't know how to market itself. There's no reason why a regional niche sport like NASCAR can be this national phenomenon in the U.S. and NHL hockey can't.
The problem with contraction/ relocation is it doesn't make all that much sense.
Hockey has NEVER been a popular sport in the U.S. All this "dilution of talent" argument is crap. I've been watching hockey for nearly 20 years now and the sport, from my point of view anyway, isn't any bigger or smaller than it ever has been in the U.S. You could contract half the damn league and turn the remaining teams into all-star caliber teams and it still wouldn't be watched or carried by most media markets.
Relocation, frankly, is just as stupid. Fans, largely Canadian ones, love to point at teams like Nashville or Florida or Tampa and whine about how there is no team in Winniquehamiltonbecpeg. Like it hurts the league. Honestly, people. Do you really thinking moving the Preds to wherever is going to make any kind of real difference other than piss off the people in Nashville who actually do like hockey and make Jimmy RIM happy? Explain it to me, because from here it's a wash.
The problem with the NHL is it doesn't know how to market itself. There's no reason why a regional niche sport like NASCAR can be this national phenomenon in the U.S. and NHL hockey can't.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Info.BHPotD
I really try hard to keep my Black Helicopters (that's conspiracy themed stuff for those of you who don't know me personally) ideas out of the pages of the blog here, but sometimes I come up with something so solid even I can't resist.
I was talking to one of my maintenance guys yesterday about all the repurcussions of the production cutbacks at the company we supply and he asked why the government wasn't doing more to improve the economy/ help fix gas prices/ create new jobs/ address the trade defecit/ etc.
I responded, "When the economy is good and jobs are plentiful, there aren't many folks wanting to join the military."
Read into that what you will. I'll be stockpiling food under my house.
Just kidding.
I'm stockpiling guns and medical supplies. Zing! Rimshot.
I was talking to one of my maintenance guys yesterday about all the repurcussions of the production cutbacks at the company we supply and he asked why the government wasn't doing more to improve the economy/ help fix gas prices/ create new jobs/ address the trade defecit/ etc.
I responded, "When the economy is good and jobs are plentiful, there aren't many folks wanting to join the military."
Read into that what you will. I'll be stockpiling food under my house.
Just kidding.
I'm stockpiling guns and medical supplies. Zing! Rimshot.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Hockey.Kings.2008_Draft
So the draft is tonight.
Lots of speculation surrounding my beloved L.A. Kings. Tampa has already pretty well come out and said they're taking Stamkos with the number 1, but no one is quite sure who the Kings are looking at.
There are several schools of thought here, but they all pretty much boil down to...
1) Play it safe, possibly waste the 2nd overall pick and take Zach Bogosian or Drew Doughty?
2) Trade down a couple of slots and take Filatov?
3) Figure you're pretty well set up at the farm level for the immediate future and trade down a bunch (in a relatively shallow draft) and get what you can?
1 is a really boring option, but it's got the least likely chance of not paying off, which things being what the are in L.A., is why I think they should do it. By all accounts, Doughty and Bogosian are both blue-chip prospect defensemen that are as unlikely to be busts as anyone. Defensemen typically take longer to mature, but you've got an insurance policy in Jack Johnson that is already starting to pay off, so why not wait a couple of years for Doughty/ Bogosian to mature and learn the big game? Assuming they reach their potential along with Johnson, it'd be akin to having a couple of Prongers- good size, offensive upside, responsible play- on your team without all the dirty hits.
And for what it's worth, I'd pick Bogosian over Doughty. They're both great and very similar, but Bogo is from the U.S. and he ought to get on well with The Jack.
2 is the sexy option. Filatov has seen his stock rise a bunch the past year and he's starting to get mentioned in the same breath as some of the other recent Russian arrivals- Ovechkin, Malkin, and Kovalchuk.
I think it's unlikely that he'll make as big of an immediate impact as any of those guys, but it's possible he could be an Alexander Semin type who will take a little longer to mature but be a really solid player in a couple of years. This option isn't bad, but it does have a chance of missing and is somewhat unnecessary. For all of their flaws, one thing the Kings actually did do well last year was put the puck in the net. Scoring isn't a problem for this team, so adding somebody like Filatov isn't all that necessary when you keep in mind there are much more severe problems to be addressed- like defense and goaltending. However, if Mike Cammalleri does end up being traded this weekend, you can make more of a case for this line of thinking.
3 I think is a bad idea unless the Kings are being offered some solid prospect talent or young players in exchange for the number 2. This draft, according to most "experts" is a fairly shallow draft- there's a lot of talent in the first seven picks or so, then some decent talent down to the middle of the draft, but after 15 or so, it's all pretty relative. There's no point in trading the number 2 for multiple deeper picks unless you end up snaring multiple top 15 picks which probably won't happen.
The Kings still need to address holes in their team. This draft could go a long way towards doing that assuming Lombardi and Co. are smart about it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Hockey.Penguins.Free_Agency
I said back at the trade deadline that I was a little unsure about Pittsburgh going into "win-now" mode with the Hossa trade where they gave up blue chip prospect Angelo Esposito.
(Forget my prediction about Feds not working out in Washington)
Now Ray Shero is doing the FA shuffle.
Being a Kings fan who is quite knowledgeable about the Pens, here's the major players and what I'd do with them. Take it for what it's worth.
1) Marian Hossa
Why you sign him: Big time, consistent offensive numbers.
Why you don't: Will be super expensive, already have a lot of scoring depth
Hossa stepped up big time in the post season netting 26 points. That's great, but you don't make these kinds of deals to sign the guy later, especially not when you know you've got to sign/ lock up half the damn team in a couple of months. Hossa was brought in to help Pitts win a Cup. It didn't happen. Does that make it a failure? Ah, sorta-kinda.
Here's the thing you have to ask yourself- if the Pens would've won the cup, do you resign Hossa? Probably not. You appreciate what he did for you, mourn for what you gave up, and enjoy the Cup. That's the very reason you don't resign him now. He's going to be too expensive. If the Pens sign Hossa, not only did they give up Armstrong and Esposito, they net gave up whoever else they can't sign. Hossa's great, but he's not worth that much to a team who already was averaging just over three goals a game in the regular season.
I tell ya though, if the rumors are true and Hossa really does want to stay in Pittsburgh, go with the "win-now" and offer him a two year contract at like say 10 million total. It's less money than he'd get on the open market, but it's also less time. Hossa will still be commanding huge stacks of cash in two years and if he's serious about winning a Cup with the Pens, he'll take it then move on for the long dough.
2) Ryan Malone
Why you sign him: Fan favorite, MUCH needed physical presence with offensive skills
Why you don't: Might ask more than he's really worth
Malone is great on the Pens. He's got B line (sometimes A line) hands but a big frame and a nose for the net. He doesn't mind standing in front of goalies and he sure as hell can take abuse. Take all that into account and also realize he's a fan favorite and has some family history with the Pens Org.
The only reason I can think of you don't sign him is he asks too much. In the post-lockout NHL, there isn't enough room for guys like Malone. When you compare his salary to the stars of the league who are making around 8-10 million a season, you can't really honestly expect Malone to ask for much more than 3 or 4 million over a relatively short contract. He had a nice playoff and he's still probably not yet lived up to his young potential, but keep in mind he also played for an extremely talented team on one of the most skilled lines in the league. I really hope Ottawa or some other team desperate for a forward with Malone's pedigree doesn't do a redux on the Boston Martin Lapointe contract and pay him a bunch because he really isn't worth it.
3) Marc-Andre Fleury
Why you sign him: One of the best young goaltenders in the game
Why you don't: Big contract, goalies are flaky by nature
The Pens were lucky enough to actually have a 1st round goalie pick work out, they need to make hay while the sun shines and sign this kid. Not signing him, from where I sit, isn't even an option. Fleury is definitely the kind of player that would make you regret signing him when he ends up on another team and wins a Cup in two seasons. It's unusual to see a kid this icy in net at such a young age. Unless he's just asking for insane money, you sign him- he's a cornerstone of your franchise, even more so now that the Pens have committed to "win-now."
4) Jordan Staal
Why you sign him: Big F'in Kid, adds to team toughness, solid defense
Why you don't: Offense?
Staal is a bit of a head scratcher to me. I'm not sure if he's so good on defense that Therrien didn't want to put him on one of the top two lines or if the kid just doesn't have hands at the NHL level. In any case, as he currently sits, he's a valuable part of the Penguins PK and defense.
If Malone walks, signing Staal becomes a priority. If he doesn't, it isn't so much. Throw the kid a 3 or 4 year deal for around 2.5 with some bonuses and see if he bites. If he doesn't, you can find other big third liners for cheaper (probably a few in Wilkes-Barre).
5) Evgeni Malkin
Why you sign him: He's one of the top five players in the league. Period.
Why you don't: Because you want to be fired as GM
Seriously, unless this kid asks for 20 million a year for 13 years or something, there is no reason you don't sign Malkin. Forget the playoffs and remember the way this kid stepped up when Sid went down. Why? Because Sid is going to go down. He plays more physical than his body allows. He's going to get hurt for 10-20 games every year. When that happens, you need somebody to pick up the battle standard and become the new go to guy. That guy is Malkin. How anyone who calls themself a hockey fan can look at this kid and say he isn't worth the money is absolutely nuts. And stop with the Jagr comparisions- this kid is light years away from where Jagr was back in the day.
Honest to God, if you made me a GM and said you can build your team around Crosby or Malkin, I'd take Malkin. That's not a slight to Crosby, I just think this kid has an offensive upside to rival Crosby and one important thing Sid doesn't have- size. Once Malkin figures out he's 6'3 and about 200 pounds and can throw his body around and forecheck as hard as Malone and Staal? The other team's forwards are going to be like Bill Paxton in Aliens: game over, man. The only player in the friggin' league with more upside than this kid is Ovechkin. Don't believe me? Save this post and show it to me in 10 years. We'll see who had the crystal ball.
(Forget my prediction about Feds not working out in Washington)
Now Ray Shero is doing the FA shuffle.
Being a Kings fan who is quite knowledgeable about the Pens, here's the major players and what I'd do with them. Take it for what it's worth.
1) Marian Hossa
Why you sign him: Big time, consistent offensive numbers.
Why you don't: Will be super expensive, already have a lot of scoring depth
Hossa stepped up big time in the post season netting 26 points. That's great, but you don't make these kinds of deals to sign the guy later, especially not when you know you've got to sign/ lock up half the damn team in a couple of months. Hossa was brought in to help Pitts win a Cup. It didn't happen. Does that make it a failure? Ah, sorta-kinda.
Here's the thing you have to ask yourself- if the Pens would've won the cup, do you resign Hossa? Probably not. You appreciate what he did for you, mourn for what you gave up, and enjoy the Cup. That's the very reason you don't resign him now. He's going to be too expensive. If the Pens sign Hossa, not only did they give up Armstrong and Esposito, they net gave up whoever else they can't sign. Hossa's great, but he's not worth that much to a team who already was averaging just over three goals a game in the regular season.
I tell ya though, if the rumors are true and Hossa really does want to stay in Pittsburgh, go with the "win-now" and offer him a two year contract at like say 10 million total. It's less money than he'd get on the open market, but it's also less time. Hossa will still be commanding huge stacks of cash in two years and if he's serious about winning a Cup with the Pens, he'll take it then move on for the long dough.
2) Ryan Malone
Why you sign him: Fan favorite, MUCH needed physical presence with offensive skills
Why you don't: Might ask more than he's really worth
Malone is great on the Pens. He's got B line (sometimes A line) hands but a big frame and a nose for the net. He doesn't mind standing in front of goalies and he sure as hell can take abuse. Take all that into account and also realize he's a fan favorite and has some family history with the Pens Org.
The only reason I can think of you don't sign him is he asks too much. In the post-lockout NHL, there isn't enough room for guys like Malone. When you compare his salary to the stars of the league who are making around 8-10 million a season, you can't really honestly expect Malone to ask for much more than 3 or 4 million over a relatively short contract. He had a nice playoff and he's still probably not yet lived up to his young potential, but keep in mind he also played for an extremely talented team on one of the most skilled lines in the league. I really hope Ottawa or some other team desperate for a forward with Malone's pedigree doesn't do a redux on the Boston Martin Lapointe contract and pay him a bunch because he really isn't worth it.
3) Marc-Andre Fleury
Why you sign him: One of the best young goaltenders in the game
Why you don't: Big contract, goalies are flaky by nature
The Pens were lucky enough to actually have a 1st round goalie pick work out, they need to make hay while the sun shines and sign this kid. Not signing him, from where I sit, isn't even an option. Fleury is definitely the kind of player that would make you regret signing him when he ends up on another team and wins a Cup in two seasons. It's unusual to see a kid this icy in net at such a young age. Unless he's just asking for insane money, you sign him- he's a cornerstone of your franchise, even more so now that the Pens have committed to "win-now."
4) Jordan Staal
Why you sign him: Big F'in Kid, adds to team toughness, solid defense
Why you don't: Offense?
Staal is a bit of a head scratcher to me. I'm not sure if he's so good on defense that Therrien didn't want to put him on one of the top two lines or if the kid just doesn't have hands at the NHL level. In any case, as he currently sits, he's a valuable part of the Penguins PK and defense.
If Malone walks, signing Staal becomes a priority. If he doesn't, it isn't so much. Throw the kid a 3 or 4 year deal for around 2.5 with some bonuses and see if he bites. If he doesn't, you can find other big third liners for cheaper (probably a few in Wilkes-Barre).
5) Evgeni Malkin
Why you sign him: He's one of the top five players in the league. Period.
Why you don't: Because you want to be fired as GM
Seriously, unless this kid asks for 20 million a year for 13 years or something, there is no reason you don't sign Malkin. Forget the playoffs and remember the way this kid stepped up when Sid went down. Why? Because Sid is going to go down. He plays more physical than his body allows. He's going to get hurt for 10-20 games every year. When that happens, you need somebody to pick up the battle standard and become the new go to guy. That guy is Malkin. How anyone who calls themself a hockey fan can look at this kid and say he isn't worth the money is absolutely nuts. And stop with the Jagr comparisions- this kid is light years away from where Jagr was back in the day.
Honest to God, if you made me a GM and said you can build your team around Crosby or Malkin, I'd take Malkin. That's not a slight to Crosby, I just think this kid has an offensive upside to rival Crosby and one important thing Sid doesn't have- size. Once Malkin figures out he's 6'3 and about 200 pounds and can throw his body around and forecheck as hard as Malone and Staal? The other team's forwards are going to be like Bill Paxton in Aliens: game over, man. The only player in the friggin' league with more upside than this kid is Ovechkin. Don't believe me? Save this post and show it to me in 10 years. We'll see who had the crystal ball.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Hockey.Game_6_SC_Finals_2008
So the Pens lost tonight.
What an effort though, right? Right down to the wire.
I've watched the last four games with my Dad who is a huge Pens fan and a couple of friends from the fantasy league. Every game except for tonight I drank, but I stayed sober for this one because I've sort of been drinking a lot lately and just didn't feel like it.
Figures that tonight would be the night when I come up with one of my best lines of all time. Just after the game ended and Bettman comes trotting out onto the ice, I bust this off-
"With y'all as my witnesses, if I ever contract a terminal illness, which, let's face it, I smoke, so y'know, I swear I will pull a Charles Bronson and assassinate Gary Bettman. 'Cause, what're they gonna do? Send me to jail? I've got a terminal illness, right? What do I care."
What an effort though, right? Right down to the wire.
I've watched the last four games with my Dad who is a huge Pens fan and a couple of friends from the fantasy league. Every game except for tonight I drank, but I stayed sober for this one because I've sort of been drinking a lot lately and just didn't feel like it.
Figures that tonight would be the night when I come up with one of my best lines of all time. Just after the game ended and Bettman comes trotting out onto the ice, I bust this off-
"With y'all as my witnesses, if I ever contract a terminal illness, which, let's face it, I smoke, so y'know, I swear I will pull a Charles Bronson and assassinate Gary Bettman. 'Cause, what're they gonna do? Send me to jail? I've got a terminal illness, right? What do I care."
Saturday, March 8, 2008
HOWTO.Tattoo
A little over a month ago, I got a new tattoo. Seems like a lot of folks have them these days, but being as how I just spent three hours in the chair on a Saturday afternoon, it was kind of surprising seeing how folks go about getting their tattoo, the questions they ask, the questions they don't, and the surprising lack of info on the net about tattoos and the process so I thought I'd talk about it a bit.
I'm going to assume if you've read this far you either want one or have thought about getting one. I'm also going to assume you don't need help picking it out. I'm sure everyone you know has told you to get something that you won't regret and blah, blah, blah. I won't waste your time with advice on that subject. Of course, you also need to think about where you want to have it placed and how big you want to go with it. If you really want to be thorough, do some experimenting- print off your image and cut it out. Place the cutout where you want your tattoo inked at and tape it to yourself and go look at it in the mirror. Better yet, have somebody draw or trace the image on you with an ink pen. This is a great way to see if something is going to come out too big or too small. Put your work clothes on over it and make sure it's where you really want it to be. My advice isn't to wait until you're in the chair to decide on something like size. Figure it out in advance and bring an image that's already correctly sized to the shop you end up going with.
Speaking of which, picking out your shop is probably the most important step. There may not be a Zagat's for tattoo shops, but it isn't that hard picking a store if you keep in mind the following-
First thing is figure out how much money you want to spend. This amount is going to determine virtually everything important about your tattoo- namely it's overall quality, it's size, how many colors, and ability of the artist working on you. As just a ballpark figure, a one color tribal armband of average quality will probably set you back around a hundred bucks depending on a whole lot of different things that you need to check out for yourself.
Once you've decided how much money you want to throw at this, start checking out the shops in your area. Yellow pages, internet, folks who have tattoos, and just keeping your eyes open are a great way to discover the shops in your area. Visit them with your art in hand (be prepared to leave it at each shop you talk to) and ask to speak to an artist about getting some work done. Once they see your art and talk to you for a bit, most artists will be able to give you a good idea on the price. If your art is particularly large or intricate the artist will probably choose to charge you by the hour instead of just giving you a figure. If you really want to go the extra mile, ask to see some of the artist's work- he or she will have pictures lying around of pieces they're especially proud of and they'll be happy to show them to you, but don't copy anything you see as your own- that's a no-no in the tattoo world. You can also ask to see their flash. Flash is "stock art" that an artist draws up to be used in books or magazines, or just the artist's own album. It's what people get when they decide they want a tattoo but don't know what kind of design they want. When you get an idea on price and have looked at the artist's work, thank them for their time and go check out the next artist the same way.
Virtually all shops that have some kind of storefront (i.e. not some guy who operates out of the back of a car and will come to your house or something) have to abide by state laws on sterilization and whatnot so typically, finding a "clean" shop isn't an issue in most places these days; if you're in a shop, it's clean. If you get a bad feeling though, don't mess around with them, just go.
Prices can vary widely, but basically you're paying for the skill of the artist both in his ability to "draw" with the needle(s) and to not scar you up while he's inking you. Tattoo shops are pretty mainstream these days, so it's not uncommon to have several shops within an acceptable driving distance for most people even in more traditional markets like the mid-west. In all likelihood, you're going to have one cheap shop, one expensive shop, and several in between. As you'd expect, the cheap shop is probably going to do rougher work, the expensive shop will be of better quality. Again, ask to see flash and other work if you can't decide between shops and go a little higher if you can possibly afford it. What looks cool when you're 20 and have a hundred bucks probably won't look as cool when you're 30 and are pulling down a good salary. You get what you pay for. I've gotten four tattoos in my life; the cheapest one I got back in '94 for 40 bucks. The most expensive one is my most recent that I paid 200 for. Any guesses on which one looks better?
Once you've picked your design and all the particulars associated (colors, size, etc) and picked your artist, call them up and make an appointment. The area you get tattooed will be sore and most likely bleeding afterwards, so don't try to fit it in before your workout session on Thursday after work. As you'd expect, weekends are busiest for tattoo shops, but a Saturday is your best bet if you have a traditional work schedule. You might be asked to put down a deposit as people are famous for backing out of a session. Don't worry about it- they'll take it off your final total.
One thing to keep in mind- generally speaking, artists are a mercurial lot. This is not to say they're untrustworthy or irresponsible, but they are artists and you should interact with them the way you would any other art types. For example, I stopped by my local shop, talked to an artist, hit it off with him instantly, liked his art, showed him my art, dropped the deposit, and made an appointment. Showed up for the appointment, found they didn't have my name in the book. They asked me to come back. We scheduled a second appointment. I showed up, my artist had taken another artist's work because artist number two had called in sick. Could I come back for a third appointment? We signed me up for a third appointment. This time I got my work done. Point is, keep in mind who you're dealing with here- they're not an accountant or a doctor, they're an artist. They probably have a different set of values than you do. If they piss you off, don't make a huge scene then expect some kind of discount on the work like you would at a mechanic's shop. Just leave. You won't get good results if you piss them off then sit down in their chair.
If you're getting work done before a particular event like a wedding or a vacation or something, keep in mind the larger your tattoo, the longer it will take to heal. My last one took a good three weeks to heal completely. And if you're wondering, yes, it will look pretty rough while healing up. A good artist's work will look better and take less time to heal than a lesser artist, so keep that in mind too when you're getting your information.
So at this point, you're all set to go and it's the day you're getting your ink done, what do you do now?
First off, don't eat right before you go. A lot of folks get a little queasy in the chair; you are, after all, being poked with a needle (and sometimes three, five, or seven needles) at around 50 times a second. Eat a couple hours in advance. You don't want to be trying to rush the artist because you're hungry from not eating, but you don't want to throw up in the chair halfway through your outline either. Do not drink before your session. The old adage of waking up after an all-night bender with a tattoo is largely folklore these days. Many shops will not ink you if you're drunk. I'd highly advise not drinking anything before your session as alcohol can act as a blood thinner and make you bleed more which makes you tougher to ink. Similarly, don't take an aspirin before you go.
Secondly, either wear something loose that won't be pulling tight on your tattoo area on the drive home or if possible, don't cover up the area at all. You'll have to take it off, roll it up, or whatever when you get in the chair anyway. If you do wear something that will be touching your tattoo area, don't wear something nice- odds are you'll be bloody and have some kind of topical ointment all over the area when you leave the shop.
Don't put on a bunch of skin moisturizer or cologne on the area you're going to get inked either. Your artist will spray down the area with rubbing alcohol before he or she starts anyway, but in my experience, taking a shower just before you go, toweling off, then going to the shop is the way to go.
On your way there, stop by the bank or ATM and get a few extra bucks out. A lot of artists aren't fortunate enough to own their own shops and frequently have to pay some kind of "chair fee" to the shop owner. Now, I'm not going to lie and say that the entire fee goes to the shop and they work only for tips, but it's good etiquette to tip your artist when the tattoo is finished. Use the standard 10-15% or if your artist does something particularly impressive, go a little more. If you plan on having your artist work on you again down the road, don't be surprised if you get some free stuff or a better appointment time if you throw he or she a little more generous tip.
Ok, so you're in the chair and your washed down. You're sitting across from a stranger who holds an inked up needle tied to an ominously buzzing mechanical device which is probably held together with rubber bands. What do you do now?
Well first, relax. Yes, it does hurt. No, it's not the worst pain you've ever felt in your life. Yes, you will survive the ordeal. How much it hurts depends largely on where you get your work done. In general, the more sensitive areas of your body- insides of the arms, ribs, etc. are more sensitive and hurt more than places like your shoulder. Also, the closer the needle is to a bone- for example right in the middle of your chest, the more it will hurt. Once you're finished, your tattoo will feel like a very bad sunburn with a bruise under it- it'll be sore to the touch for a few days, but it's not unbearable. Follow your aftercare instructions and you'll heal up just fine.
Some artists like to talk while they work, some sit as silently as the dead. A little light conversation won't hurt, but stay away from topics which could distract your artist. Talk about stuff like what bands you and the artist like or movies you've seen lately. Stay away from politics or other heavy fare. For the most part, your artist will talk to you if he or she feels like it, when he or she feels like it. Some parts of your art are going to be easier to transfer into your skin than others. To put it simply, if they're talking to you, talk back. If they're not, don't. Bringing an iPod is considered bad form and should not be considered. Don't plan on talking on your cell phone or texting while you're in the chair either; many shops have a no cell phones policy.
Once they're done with you, they'll have you get up and check out your new tattoo. Unless you go to the absolutely talented, you're going to look pretty rough. Your art will be sitting atop red, swollen, irritated flesh. You'll probably still be bleeding. You'll also probably still have some inkstains on your body. Don't freak out. Its too late now, anyway.
As you and the artist settle up financially, he or she will give you pointers on how to care for your tattoo. If it's your first one, ask for a card or write it down. The next few days/ weeks (depending on how big your tattoo is) will be absolutely critical in how it looks for the rest of the time it's on your body. Follow your artist's directions and you'll be fine. They may try to sell you some ointment. The first three times I didn't bother buying- I just stopped by a drugstore and bought bacitracin. This last time I bought the good stuff because I trusted my artist. It was worth it. Your mileage may vary.
After you heal up, you may need re-touching on some of the areas that were inked late in the session. The longer you're in the chair, the more ink and blood accumulates on your skin and makes it tough for your artist to see what he or she is doing. Sometimes your skin will become so irritated that the ink just doesn't "stick" although most professional artists are a light enough touch that this doesn't occur. Typically, this re-touch is covered in the initial fee, but you'll need to call and make another appointment. If your re-touch is necessary because you didn't take care of yourself, you'll probably be charged a fee.
Remember, the best compliment you can give your artist is sending business his or her way if they did a good job or give them some repeat business.
It's a heckuva process and the second or third day after you get your new tattoo and you're basking in it's unhealed, scabby glory you'll probably be wondering what the hell you were thinking, but it will heal up and you'll (hopefully) be left with something extremely cool and unique that you'll enjoy for a very long time.
Like my Lucero Elephant.
GoofyStrategy.Linux
Although my actual job title is Manufacturing Engineer and I work for a very large company, the location I work at outsources its maintenance and labor, so the amount of employees on the real company payroll is quite small. As a result, a lot of us do parts of two or three different jobs.
Like me for instance.
My job is primarily doing my actual, titled job, but I'm also in charge of keeping up our plant's IT stuff. As a result, I'm back to reading Slashdot on the daily to keep up with the trends and whatnot.
My general critique of the completely out of touch with reality average Slashdot poster aside, one of the most common reoccurring themes on Slashdot regardless of topic is why Linux isn't more popular. Well that and the worn out In Soviet Russia and Step 4: Profit! jokes.
So why isn't Linux more popular? Let me first dispel some of the widely held reasons for thinking it isn't popular then tell you the real reason.
First off, it has nothing to do with Linux being hard to set-up or configure. Out of all my non-work friends, I can honestly say I've got maybe two friends who could reliably set up Windows on a box, so saying Linux is too hard to install is like saying a person shouldn't buy a car because it's too hard to work on. Point is, the vast majority of computer users don't install their own OS just like they don't work on their own cars. Since Linux doesn't come standard on many boxes, and if folks are going to use it they will have to install it is a point to be made, but let's be honest, if we're talking about your average computer user, they're not going to do that anyway. People like my parents aren't going to go lay down $500 to $1,500 on a new computer, take it home, then immediately install a different OS and that's my point- once a normal computer user buys a Windows PC, Linux already lost the battle.
Secondly, the vast majority of computer users don't have any idea how secure or unsecure their computer is so selling a person on Linux being all locked down is lost on them. Hell, I've seen more people than I can count running anti-virus software that hasn't updated itself in years that think their computers are secure. Do you really think a user like that is going to go through the trouble of installing a Linux distro for the sake of security? (And as a sidenote- let's be honest, computer security is overblown anyway. Hackers are much more likely to hack a credit card company's site and harvest the numbers or phish than break into the average user's PC and try to steal data. The worst thing that's likely to happen to the average PC user is getting a bot installed that makes them part of Storm or something).
Thirdly, the "everything is free" argument doesn't hold water with many people because growing up in America, we tend to equate at least some cost with value or quality. I've read some articles and posts about this argument being rendered invalid because most people have a friend who can install Windows for free or have access to a corporate copy or whatever. Again, the vast majority of people I know get the OS they use pre-installed when they buy the computer. The only time somebody like that is going to mess around trying to find a copy of Windows is going to be when their machine screws up, so I think this is a moot point.
Lastly, stop with the stupid names and the stupid mascots and all that stupid stuff for all the different distros. It's confusing for anyone who doesn't live on sites like Slashdot and makes business take you less seriously. I remember telling my folks I had bought a copy of Mandrake back in 2001. They asked if it was a game. I told them it was a Linux distro. They asked why it wasn't just called Linux then. I told them because Linux is free and nobody really owns it, but this company was putting out this package that included it and other stuff and called it Mandrake. By that time their eyes had glazed over.
This is a problem. People go to buy Windows, they buy Windows. Sure, it may be Windows Vista or Windows XP, and there may be other flavors, but it isn't like the goofiness of Red Hat, Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc. etc.
Also, if you're trying to put out the easiest to use, most user friendly version of Linux with which you expect to convert the masses- DO NOT name it something unpronounceable. I swear to God, nothing else perfectly typifies the computer dork stereotype than: "Hey guys, let's make this super easy to use Linux install. K, great? What do we call it?"
"Ubuntu."
Even if I did know how to say it, how likely am I to walk into Best Buy and ask a clerk for a copy of Ubuntu? I feel stupid saying "Can I get a McFlurry" at McDonald's. Do you really think I'm going to go ask for a copy of "Uh, Bun-, no that's not right, uh-boon-tew? I think that's how you say it."
Honestly, people. Don't CS majors still have to take a business class in college? You want a name? Name it "Easy." People go to Best Buy and get a copy of Easy. It's computing made Easy. You see how this works? Leave the capital on there, and for God's sake don't think up some shaky acronym for it, just call it Easy.
So now that I've pointed out why the average joe computer user doesn't care about Linux, how should somebody go about marketing Linux to the masses?
1) Do it and do it NOW.
Seems like the biggest Linux push was back in the early 00's when XP was firing on all cylinders and Win2k wasn't really all that bad. One huge reason why nobody cared was because they weren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. That is not currently the case.
Does anyone really think Apple has suddenly started just making great computers? Apple is as good or bad as it always has been- the reason they're selling more computers now than ever before is Microsoft screwed up a good thing with Vista, folks didn't dig it and it's system requirements, so instead of running down to Best Buy, standing around waiting for some college kid who knows nothing about computers to read them the same information that's printed on the card hanging on the shelf below the computer, getting a new PC filled with malware and letting the Geek Squad into their house and all their personal files, they went to Apple.com and ordered a MacBook.
It's like a perfect storm of bad customer experience- force a bad product (Vista) on the public, provide them with either no/ overpriced/ bad customer service (Dell.com, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc.), then wonder why they don't come back in 2.4 years to drop another grand on this experience.
There's no better time than now (well, maybe six months ago would've been better, but it's still a good time) to be trying to push Linux to the masses. Everybody hates Vista. If Microsoft wasn't forcing Vista down PC manufacturer's throats, then those same manufacturers turning around and forcing it down the consumer's throats, Vista would have even less adoption than it currently has. Now is the time for somebody to get it together and push a Linux distro for people like my parents.
2) Find somebody- anybody- willing to sell it pre-installed
Find a company who used to be tops and is desperate to get back- somebody like Gateway for instance or Acer. Some PC vendor who was big in the 90's but has been off the radar for a long time now. Espouse to them the idea of selling Linux on a desktop box aimed at the average joe, then remind them that while they won't have Microsoft subsidizing the sale of a new computer and the hardware margins are slim, they don't have to pay anything for this OS at all and they'll have a lot of happy customers who don't have to drop a bunch of cash to actually use their new computer as soon as they get it home.
This idea of converting the masses by making them waste a Saturday performing a task well over their head technically without a safety net (yes I know the internet has all kinds of howto docs, but IF IT'S THEIR ONLY COMPUTER THAT DOES THEM NO GOOD WHATSOEVER) is a huge reason why Linux isn't working. Sell it pre-configured on a box. Which brings me to...
3) Sell it on the right box
One of the huge advantages of Linux is that it's configurable for all different kinds of environments. If a PC vendor stuck it in a small box- like Mac Mini sized or even better, set it up as a laptop with WiFi, it'd be perfect as a second computer. The vendor doesn't have to worry about people running all kinds of intense software on it, just sell it as an internet appliance. Configure it to be extremely stable, able to access the net through a browser, do POP3 email, and include Open Office for basic word processor functionality and spreadsheets and you've just satisfied 90% of the home PC market right out of the box. Stick a few USBs on it for expandable HDD space to hold music or whatever and you're done. Sell it for a couple hundred bucks. Resist the urge to sell real estate to the pre-installed spam programs from AOL, Verizon, etc. and you'll even have some of the hardcores preaching your name.
Now, I'm sure if you're one of the Linux indoctrinated geek elite, you've got all kinds of objections to this. Here's what I'm going to say to you guys-
We've been doing it your way for 10 years. It's time for a change because your way of free love and the GPL isn't working.
Somebody can still make Linux into a viable Windows alternative. It just isn't going to be any of the current people.
And don't correct me on Ubuntu's spelling or pronunciation. You're only making my point for me.
Like me for instance.
My job is primarily doing my actual, titled job, but I'm also in charge of keeping up our plant's IT stuff. As a result, I'm back to reading Slashdot on the daily to keep up with the trends and whatnot.
My general critique of the completely out of touch with reality average Slashdot poster aside, one of the most common reoccurring themes on Slashdot regardless of topic is why Linux isn't more popular. Well that and the worn out In Soviet Russia and Step 4: Profit! jokes.
So why isn't Linux more popular? Let me first dispel some of the widely held reasons for thinking it isn't popular then tell you the real reason.
First off, it has nothing to do with Linux being hard to set-up or configure. Out of all my non-work friends, I can honestly say I've got maybe two friends who could reliably set up Windows on a box, so saying Linux is too hard to install is like saying a person shouldn't buy a car because it's too hard to work on. Point is, the vast majority of computer users don't install their own OS just like they don't work on their own cars. Since Linux doesn't come standard on many boxes, and if folks are going to use it they will have to install it is a point to be made, but let's be honest, if we're talking about your average computer user, they're not going to do that anyway. People like my parents aren't going to go lay down $500 to $1,500 on a new computer, take it home, then immediately install a different OS and that's my point- once a normal computer user buys a Windows PC, Linux already lost the battle.
Secondly, the vast majority of computer users don't have any idea how secure or unsecure their computer is so selling a person on Linux being all locked down is lost on them. Hell, I've seen more people than I can count running anti-virus software that hasn't updated itself in years that think their computers are secure. Do you really think a user like that is going to go through the trouble of installing a Linux distro for the sake of security? (And as a sidenote- let's be honest, computer security is overblown anyway. Hackers are much more likely to hack a credit card company's site and harvest the numbers or phish than break into the average user's PC and try to steal data. The worst thing that's likely to happen to the average PC user is getting a bot installed that makes them part of Storm or something).
Thirdly, the "everything is free" argument doesn't hold water with many people because growing up in America, we tend to equate at least some cost with value or quality. I've read some articles and posts about this argument being rendered invalid because most people have a friend who can install Windows for free or have access to a corporate copy or whatever. Again, the vast majority of people I know get the OS they use pre-installed when they buy the computer. The only time somebody like that is going to mess around trying to find a copy of Windows is going to be when their machine screws up, so I think this is a moot point.
Lastly, stop with the stupid names and the stupid mascots and all that stupid stuff for all the different distros. It's confusing for anyone who doesn't live on sites like Slashdot and makes business take you less seriously. I remember telling my folks I had bought a copy of Mandrake back in 2001. They asked if it was a game. I told them it was a Linux distro. They asked why it wasn't just called Linux then. I told them because Linux is free and nobody really owns it, but this company was putting out this package that included it and other stuff and called it Mandrake. By that time their eyes had glazed over.
This is a problem. People go to buy Windows, they buy Windows. Sure, it may be Windows Vista or Windows XP, and there may be other flavors, but it isn't like the goofiness of Red Hat, Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc. etc.
Also, if you're trying to put out the easiest to use, most user friendly version of Linux with which you expect to convert the masses- DO NOT name it something unpronounceable. I swear to God, nothing else perfectly typifies the computer dork stereotype than: "Hey guys, let's make this super easy to use Linux install. K, great? What do we call it?"
"Ubuntu."
Even if I did know how to say it, how likely am I to walk into Best Buy and ask a clerk for a copy of Ubuntu? I feel stupid saying "Can I get a McFlurry" at McDonald's. Do you really think I'm going to go ask for a copy of "Uh, Bun-, no that's not right, uh-boon-tew? I think that's how you say it."
Honestly, people. Don't CS majors still have to take a business class in college? You want a name? Name it "Easy." People go to Best Buy and get a copy of Easy. It's computing made Easy. You see how this works? Leave the capital on there, and for God's sake don't think up some shaky acronym for it, just call it Easy.
So now that I've pointed out why the average joe computer user doesn't care about Linux, how should somebody go about marketing Linux to the masses?
1) Do it and do it NOW.
Seems like the biggest Linux push was back in the early 00's when XP was firing on all cylinders and Win2k wasn't really all that bad. One huge reason why nobody cared was because they weren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. That is not currently the case.
Does anyone really think Apple has suddenly started just making great computers? Apple is as good or bad as it always has been- the reason they're selling more computers now than ever before is Microsoft screwed up a good thing with Vista, folks didn't dig it and it's system requirements, so instead of running down to Best Buy, standing around waiting for some college kid who knows nothing about computers to read them the same information that's printed on the card hanging on the shelf below the computer, getting a new PC filled with malware and letting the Geek Squad into their house and all their personal files, they went to Apple.com and ordered a MacBook.
It's like a perfect storm of bad customer experience- force a bad product (Vista) on the public, provide them with either no/ overpriced/ bad customer service (Dell.com, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc.), then wonder why they don't come back in 2.4 years to drop another grand on this experience.
There's no better time than now (well, maybe six months ago would've been better, but it's still a good time) to be trying to push Linux to the masses. Everybody hates Vista. If Microsoft wasn't forcing Vista down PC manufacturer's throats, then those same manufacturers turning around and forcing it down the consumer's throats, Vista would have even less adoption than it currently has. Now is the time for somebody to get it together and push a Linux distro for people like my parents.
2) Find somebody- anybody- willing to sell it pre-installed
Find a company who used to be tops and is desperate to get back- somebody like Gateway for instance or Acer. Some PC vendor who was big in the 90's but has been off the radar for a long time now. Espouse to them the idea of selling Linux on a desktop box aimed at the average joe, then remind them that while they won't have Microsoft subsidizing the sale of a new computer and the hardware margins are slim, they don't have to pay anything for this OS at all and they'll have a lot of happy customers who don't have to drop a bunch of cash to actually use their new computer as soon as they get it home.
This idea of converting the masses by making them waste a Saturday performing a task well over their head technically without a safety net (yes I know the internet has all kinds of howto docs, but IF IT'S THEIR ONLY COMPUTER THAT DOES THEM NO GOOD WHATSOEVER) is a huge reason why Linux isn't working. Sell it pre-configured on a box. Which brings me to...
3) Sell it on the right box
One of the huge advantages of Linux is that it's configurable for all different kinds of environments. If a PC vendor stuck it in a small box- like Mac Mini sized or even better, set it up as a laptop with WiFi, it'd be perfect as a second computer. The vendor doesn't have to worry about people running all kinds of intense software on it, just sell it as an internet appliance. Configure it to be extremely stable, able to access the net through a browser, do POP3 email, and include Open Office for basic word processor functionality and spreadsheets and you've just satisfied 90% of the home PC market right out of the box. Stick a few USBs on it for expandable HDD space to hold music or whatever and you're done. Sell it for a couple hundred bucks. Resist the urge to sell real estate to the pre-installed spam programs from AOL, Verizon, etc. and you'll even have some of the hardcores preaching your name.
Now, I'm sure if you're one of the Linux indoctrinated geek elite, you've got all kinds of objections to this. Here's what I'm going to say to you guys-
We've been doing it your way for 10 years. It's time for a change because your way of free love and the GPL isn't working.
Somebody can still make Linux into a viable Windows alternative. It just isn't going to be any of the current people.
And don't correct me on Ubuntu's spelling or pronunciation. You're only making my point for me.
fighting.hockey
I was commenting on a THN.com article, and found myself answering this Adam guy's question about fighting in the NHL. I kept going in this circuitous and off-topic route, so I figured I ought to save him the time and trouble and turn it into a blog post instead.
So the question is- does fighting belong in hockey?
Seems like we can't have a season go by without this question being asked by some sportswriter somewhere. You get your typical initial knee-jerk reaction posts or comments which are generally centered around a "for" standpoint- it's been there for years, it actually discourages dirty play, fans dig it- and an "against" standpoint- it's why the sport doesn't get on T.V. it's why the NHL will never be taken seriously, it's why my friends don't watch it, (and my personal favorite) think of the children!
I used to get lured in by the cheap thrills of making a holier-than-thou-NHL-fan-longer-than-you post and going off on the subject, but with a few more years on me, a whole lot more mileage, and a few more sweaters (that's jerseys for you non-hockey fans out there) in my closet, I've uncovered the real reasons we, as hockey fans, have to endure this question every... single... damn... year.
Me being the courteous guy I am, I've listed the REAL reasons we have to endure the "Does fighting belong in hockey" question below.
1) Invariably at some point during the year, you'll have some incident in the NHL that somehow manages to make national headlines. This is ALWAYS something along the lines of the Steve Moore incident and never something like Alex Ovechkin scoring four goals, five points, 1 broken nose, and an unknown amount of stitches in the same game.
Anyone with any sense at all, regardless of whether or not they're a card carrying NHL fan, should realize that something like the Steve Moore incident has absolutely nothing to do with fighting in the NHL (neither did McSorely tapping Don Brashear on the head with his stick back a few years ago). What it does pertain to is something else entirely and frequently differs between each situation, but the response is always the same.
They damn the sport and it's sideshow-esque nature. They feign disbelief that something like this could happen in a professionally regulated sport. They express sympathy for the families involved. In short, they work up more emotion talking about two random canucks playing a sport than a member of the U.S. service killed in Iraq.
What's the real motivation? Incidents like these are a great opportunity for a sportswriter covering a largely unnoticed sport like hockey in the U.S. to get their name and face out to a very large contingent of people who are inevitably stopping by to rubberneck for a few minutes before moving on. So they do what we all do in that kind of situation- they make hay while the sun shines. They cash in.
Hockey fans may be a small lot, comparatively, but they're a passionate lot. I'm sure sportswriters mailboxes, both of the real-life and E variety fill up, posts are submitted, blog entries are posted. It's a news event just like any other. It generates traffic to sites, buzz on the streets, and revenue in ad dollars.
Also, it's a great time for a frustrated sportswriter to last out at a sport with no big name, big money friends. I'm sure it's tough not to jump all over the NFL every time a player dies, but talking bad about the NFL just isn't good for business.
2) A lot of non-fans love to point at fighting as the reason hockey isn't popular in the U.S. This is also where the "think of the children" people love to get in on the act pointing at guys like Stu Grimson and saying they don't want their kids emulating that kind of behavior.
This is, of course, total... bunk? You thought I was going to curse there didn't ya- I'm trying to keep it clean on this blog, thankyouverymuch.
The truth is, Americans love violence. We invented action movies and violent video games. We organized the national boxing leagues that would later expand to encompass the rest of the world. We started extreme sports, emulated gladiatorial games on TV, and when the aforementioned boxing wasn't enough started up "no-holds-barred" type mixed martial arts leagues to say nothing of the pseudo-sport that is professional wrestling. Our country, unlike say, Canada, was started with a bloody revolution. Now somebody is going to say to me with a straight face that Canadians are more bloodthirsty than we are because they, for the most part, don't mind fighting in hockey? Come on... Again, it isn't like it doesn't happen in baseball, football, or basketball anyway.
So why the double standard when it comes to fighting in hockey?
Simple. Hockey is outside of most people's comfort zones.
90% of all American males know the important rules to baseball, football, and basketball by the time they're 10 years old. Hockey is this weird sport most people don't know the rules for, so instead of admitting ignorance and trying to figure out what the sport is all about, it's much easier on the ego to simply dismiss it. This also applies to more fringe sports like boxing because 90% of the people you will ever meet understand boxing or MMA fights or whatever on the same level other people like you do- beat the crap out of the other guy, try not to die.
I make a lot of assumption in my opinion pieces, and I'll make another one here- I'll bet you that the vast majority of American sportswriters didn't grow up playing hockey, professionally or otherwise, and did not dream of getting a job reporting hockey. I'll bet you they wanted to cover one of the other three major sports and had to take a job covering hockey. They do their job with robotic precision and parrot back stats and events just as they would a game in their chosen field, but without the passion or interest they'd show their favorite respective sport.
So while fighting in baseball builds camaraderie and there's just nothing quite like a baseball fight, hockey players are goons! Whatever. Pot meet kettle.
Lastly, for anyone out there who honestly think their 10-year-old wants to grow up to be Tiger Williams, I ask you to take the following quiz: show the following pictures to your 14 year-old hockey fan son and ask him who he wants to be- Sidney Crosby or Tiger Williams?
The defense rests, your honor.
Fighting belongs in hockey simply because it's already there, it's been there for years, and it ought to continue to be there. Hockey's long and storied history is one of the few things that could possibly set it aside from the other pro sports here in the U.S. Unfortunately, Commissioner Bettman has made some moves to make that unique and colorful history bland and faceless at the expense of some outstanding folks who were originally honored just to try and make the sport more popular.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the most recent sports league turned media frenzy NASCAR change any rules to make their sport more appealing? Has MMA? No. They simply kept doing what they were doing and tried to put the word out as best they could with effective marketing.
It's what the NHL ought to try. Stop listening to the talking heads in the media, the moms against hockey violence, and all that other noise and start listening to your damn fans.
For the past few years, I've been signed up as a member of the NHL Fan Face Off. Every couple of weeks during the season, the NHL sends me a link in my email box that takes me to a survey where I'm asked a bunch of questions- have I attended a game this season, do I know who's playing this Saturday/ Sunday on NBC, do I live in a market that gets the VS. channel, do I support the proposed rule changes, stuff like that. I'd say over the years I must have filled out at least 100 of these surveys. Never once have I been asked the simplest, yet most important question the NHL should actually be concerning themselves with-
Why are you a hockey fan?
But I digress in an already way too long article.
The NHL could've survived without fighting, much like it could've survived without guys like Constantine Smythe (no, not the guy from American Idol) or Clarence Campbell ever contributing anything to the sport, but it's sure a lot more unique with it in there.
So the question is- does fighting belong in hockey?
Seems like we can't have a season go by without this question being asked by some sportswriter somewhere. You get your typical initial knee-jerk reaction posts or comments which are generally centered around a "for" standpoint- it's been there for years, it actually discourages dirty play, fans dig it- and an "against" standpoint- it's why the sport doesn't get on T.V. it's why the NHL will never be taken seriously, it's why my friends don't watch it, (and my personal favorite) think of the children!
I used to get lured in by the cheap thrills of making a holier-than-thou-NHL-fan-longer-than-you post and going off on the subject, but with a few more years on me, a whole lot more mileage, and a few more sweaters (that's jerseys for you non-hockey fans out there) in my closet, I've uncovered the real reasons we, as hockey fans, have to endure this question every... single... damn... year.
Me being the courteous guy I am, I've listed the REAL reasons we have to endure the "Does fighting belong in hockey" question below.
1) Invariably at some point during the year, you'll have some incident in the NHL that somehow manages to make national headlines. This is ALWAYS something along the lines of the Steve Moore incident and never something like Alex Ovechkin scoring four goals, five points, 1 broken nose, and an unknown amount of stitches in the same game.
Anyone with any sense at all, regardless of whether or not they're a card carrying NHL fan, should realize that something like the Steve Moore incident has absolutely nothing to do with fighting in the NHL (neither did McSorely tapping Don Brashear on the head with his stick back a few years ago). What it does pertain to is something else entirely and frequently differs between each situation, but the response is always the same.
They damn the sport and it's sideshow-esque nature. They feign disbelief that something like this could happen in a professionally regulated sport. They express sympathy for the families involved. In short, they work up more emotion talking about two random canucks playing a sport than a member of the U.S. service killed in Iraq.
What's the real motivation? Incidents like these are a great opportunity for a sportswriter covering a largely unnoticed sport like hockey in the U.S. to get their name and face out to a very large contingent of people who are inevitably stopping by to rubberneck for a few minutes before moving on. So they do what we all do in that kind of situation- they make hay while the sun shines. They cash in.
Hockey fans may be a small lot, comparatively, but they're a passionate lot. I'm sure sportswriters mailboxes, both of the real-life and E variety fill up, posts are submitted, blog entries are posted. It's a news event just like any other. It generates traffic to sites, buzz on the streets, and revenue in ad dollars.
Also, it's a great time for a frustrated sportswriter to last out at a sport with no big name, big money friends. I'm sure it's tough not to jump all over the NFL every time a player dies, but talking bad about the NFL just isn't good for business.
2) A lot of non-fans love to point at fighting as the reason hockey isn't popular in the U.S. This is also where the "think of the children" people love to get in on the act pointing at guys like Stu Grimson and saying they don't want their kids emulating that kind of behavior.
This is, of course, total... bunk? You thought I was going to curse there didn't ya- I'm trying to keep it clean on this blog, thankyouverymuch.
The truth is, Americans love violence. We invented action movies and violent video games. We organized the national boxing leagues that would later expand to encompass the rest of the world. We started extreme sports, emulated gladiatorial games on TV, and when the aforementioned boxing wasn't enough started up "no-holds-barred" type mixed martial arts leagues to say nothing of the pseudo-sport that is professional wrestling. Our country, unlike say, Canada, was started with a bloody revolution. Now somebody is going to say to me with a straight face that Canadians are more bloodthirsty than we are because they, for the most part, don't mind fighting in hockey? Come on... Again, it isn't like it doesn't happen in baseball, football, or basketball anyway.
So why the double standard when it comes to fighting in hockey?
Simple. Hockey is outside of most people's comfort zones.
90% of all American males know the important rules to baseball, football, and basketball by the time they're 10 years old. Hockey is this weird sport most people don't know the rules for, so instead of admitting ignorance and trying to figure out what the sport is all about, it's much easier on the ego to simply dismiss it. This also applies to more fringe sports like boxing because 90% of the people you will ever meet understand boxing or MMA fights or whatever on the same level other people like you do- beat the crap out of the other guy, try not to die.
I make a lot of assumption in my opinion pieces, and I'll make another one here- I'll bet you that the vast majority of American sportswriters didn't grow up playing hockey, professionally or otherwise, and did not dream of getting a job reporting hockey. I'll bet you they wanted to cover one of the other three major sports and had to take a job covering hockey. They do their job with robotic precision and parrot back stats and events just as they would a game in their chosen field, but without the passion or interest they'd show their favorite respective sport.
So while fighting in baseball builds camaraderie and there's just nothing quite like a baseball fight, hockey players are goons! Whatever. Pot meet kettle.
Lastly, for anyone out there who honestly think their 10-year-old wants to grow up to be Tiger Williams, I ask you to take the following quiz: show the following pictures to your 14 year-old hockey fan son and ask him who he wants to be- Sidney Crosby or Tiger Williams?
The defense rests, your honor.
Fighting belongs in hockey simply because it's already there, it's been there for years, and it ought to continue to be there. Hockey's long and storied history is one of the few things that could possibly set it aside from the other pro sports here in the U.S. Unfortunately, Commissioner Bettman has made some moves to make that unique and colorful history bland and faceless at the expense of some outstanding folks who were originally honored just to try and make the sport more popular.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the most recent sports league turned media frenzy NASCAR change any rules to make their sport more appealing? Has MMA? No. They simply kept doing what they were doing and tried to put the word out as best they could with effective marketing.
It's what the NHL ought to try. Stop listening to the talking heads in the media, the moms against hockey violence, and all that other noise and start listening to your damn fans.
For the past few years, I've been signed up as a member of the NHL Fan Face Off. Every couple of weeks during the season, the NHL sends me a link in my email box that takes me to a survey where I'm asked a bunch of questions- have I attended a game this season, do I know who's playing this Saturday/ Sunday on NBC, do I live in a market that gets the VS. channel, do I support the proposed rule changes, stuff like that. I'd say over the years I must have filled out at least 100 of these surveys. Never once have I been asked the simplest, yet most important question the NHL should actually be concerning themselves with-
Why are you a hockey fan?
But I digress in an already way too long article.
The NHL could've survived without fighting, much like it could've survived without guys like Constantine Smythe (no, not the guy from American Idol) or Clarence Campbell ever contributing anything to the sport, but it's sure a lot more unique with it in there.
Friday, February 29, 2008
TradeDeadline2007.Hockey
My favorite hockey team, the Los Angeles Kings, have not been good for quite some time. We had a couple flashes of brilliance there in the early 00s (pronounced zeroes, you cretins) with those Deadmarsh and Palffy lineups, but for the most part, we've been crap since about 1994.
So while I had virtually no interest in this year's trade deals other than hoping the Kings would unload some of the overpaid overage talent, I still feel the need to comment on a few of the deals that went down earlier this week.
The Big Deal- Hossa goes to Pittsburgh
Reminding me phonetically of one of my favorite Ramones songs aside, this was unquestionably the biggest deal made this year, but to me, it's something of a head scratcher.
Hockey pundits will want to burn me for saying that, but that's ok. All, and yes, I mean all, American born hockey pundits are just guys doing time until a baseball job opens up. The Canadian pundits aren't much better with their blatant homerism towards players and teams north of the border. But enough stalling, why do I raise an eyebrow to the Hossa deal when all other hockey people in the universe are praising Penguins GM Ray Shero?
Making a move for a UFA like Hossa is essentially telling Sidney Crosby- nice job being an MVP and all, but we want a cup and we want it NOW. The Pens didn't give up too much- Colby Armstrong is the prototypical NHL underachiever and Erik Christensen is another one of those little too good to be a third liner, but not consistent enough to be second type of guys. Angelo Esposito is the real name departing from Pittsburgh in this deal- don't let anyone tell you any differently. By letting go of the prospect Esposito, the Penguins are, at least in my opinion, in "win now" mode officially.
The Pens have scoring to be sure, Malkin and Crosby are potent as either a 1-2 pairing at center with whoever playing on their respective wings, and playing on the same line, they're virtually unstoppable. Hossa would actually be the least talented guy on a Malkin-Crosby-Hossa line, and thinking about that statement too long should be enough to make most people's heads explode.
So what's the problem?
It's too much too soon for a kid like Sid. I know, I know, he's been groomed to be the poster boy of the NHL and all, but no matter how good The Kid is, he isn't ready for the responsibility of taking this extremely young team on his own, admittedly broad, shoulders. There's virtually no veteran leadership on this team outside of "Scary" Gary Roberts and (former King) Darryl Sydor. Ty Conklin has played over his head filling in for Marc-Andre Fleury, but goalies are a mercurial bunch and the Game 1 goal of the 2006 Cup Finals might still rattle the U.S. born goalie. The Penguin defense is largely provided by the entire team as the D corps is minus any real outstanding defensive talent (Sergei Gonchar being oustanding offensive talent in my book).
With the wheels falling off in Ottawa, it's possible, if not highly likely, the Penguins win the Eastern Conference, but what happens if they run up against Detroit, or as much as I hate to admit it, Anaheim in the finals? Youth and scoring very rarely win Cups.
I guess my concern is that so much pressure will be placed on Sid, and it will be pressure that he gladly accepts because that seems to be just the kind of player and person he already has become, that it will be too much and he'll be burned by it- thinking it's his fault they got swept in the finals and all, when really, it's just management pushing too hard and expecting too much out of a kid of even Sid's considerable talent. Don't forget, this time two years ago, the Pens were dead last. The turnaround happened much quicker than anyone expected. Me personally, I think management should've remembered that and given the Pens another year before pulling some blockbuster, future-mortgaging move.
I have been known to over-analyze, however.
A not quite as big deal, but still pretty big- Richards does Dallas
Everyone has known for quite awhile that Tampa Bay wouldn't be able to keep St. Louis, Richards, and Lecavalier together forever. Richards, while extremely capable was found to be the odd man out and was sent to Dallas.
It's a great move for Dallas, replacing an aging superstar like Mike Modano with a superstar like Richards who is really just entering his prime. The Stars also didn't really give up anything but cap space and a few odd parts by doing this deal. Speaking from the point of view of a Pacific Conference rival (can we PLEASE put the Stars in the Central for God's sake and let them beat up on STL or Chicago for a change?) I've been waiting for the Stars to get worse, not bad, but at least worse for years now and it just won't happen. I'm sure Canadians love to hate the Stars. They've been so solid for so long in the South...
Colorado rebuilding Cup winning team
Am I nuts or did I not read like two weeks ago that Forsberg was NOT coming back to the NHL this season? All of a sudden, he's signed by the Avs and for good measure, they went and traded for Adam Foote. I'm just wondering if any calls were made to Roy.
Forsberg is can't lose as even if he sucks after being off for a year they only gave up money. The thing Avs fans should be concerned about is the giving up of draft picks in their deadline dealings. I don't think any sane person would give you odds on the Avs making it to the Western Conference finals, let alone the Stanley Cup finals, so again, why mortgage the future? They've got a few outstanding kids- Stasny and Liles, but other than that, it seems slim. This kind of dealing gets you stuck in that black hole of not being a contender, yet not being bad enough to get good picks. The Avs need to be careful with stuff like this.
Capitals get Fedorov, Cooke, and Huet
Not the worst moves, but again, not sure if they were the smartest. Feds has been blah the past few seasons, but I understand the idea of trying to spread scoring across lines. I'd assume they'll pair him with Ovechkin rather than Semin, but who knows. Cooke adds some grit which is always good for an East team, and Huet is a competent backup (not that it means much playing behind an ironman like 'Zilla).
It's sort of like Colorado's moves though- I don't really get it. None of those guys are going to put a team over the top, let alone a borderline team like Washington. Ah well, I guess uncle Ted needed something to blog about.
Sharks and Sabres Deal
This is one of those surprisingly serendipitous deals that really does benefit both teams evenly. San Jose who has uncharacteristically underachived this year and relied HEAVILY on Evgeni Nabokov (who deserves an MVP in my opinion) gets an overachiver in Brian Campbell. Buffalo, who let the two guys who were really good go and kept the one who might be last summer, have played over their heads just to stay in contention get an underachiever in Steve Bernier. I also like this move because I have Bernier in my fantasy league and he's much better than he's played this season. Hopefully some of the famous Buffalo work ethic will rub off on him.
Those were the big ones. The rest were more or less inconsequential.
I do like that Columbus was able to hang on to their kids. I know they're an expansion team and a still relatively young one at that, but they've sucked for too long. I like the direction Ken Hitchcock has them heading in and I like the fact they didn't give up just yet on Zherdev. Somebody's going to look like a genius if that kid ever gets his head on straight.
I also like the fact that the Kings got rid of Modry and Stuart. Too bad Blake was on the IR or we might have been able to ship him back to the Avs...
So while I had virtually no interest in this year's trade deals other than hoping the Kings would unload some of the overpaid overage talent, I still feel the need to comment on a few of the deals that went down earlier this week.
The Big Deal- Hossa goes to Pittsburgh
Reminding me phonetically of one of my favorite Ramones songs aside, this was unquestionably the biggest deal made this year, but to me, it's something of a head scratcher.
Hockey pundits will want to burn me for saying that, but that's ok. All, and yes, I mean all, American born hockey pundits are just guys doing time until a baseball job opens up. The Canadian pundits aren't much better with their blatant homerism towards players and teams north of the border. But enough stalling, why do I raise an eyebrow to the Hossa deal when all other hockey people in the universe are praising Penguins GM Ray Shero?
Making a move for a UFA like Hossa is essentially telling Sidney Crosby- nice job being an MVP and all, but we want a cup and we want it NOW. The Pens didn't give up too much- Colby Armstrong is the prototypical NHL underachiever and Erik Christensen is another one of those little too good to be a third liner, but not consistent enough to be second type of guys. Angelo Esposito is the real name departing from Pittsburgh in this deal- don't let anyone tell you any differently. By letting go of the prospect Esposito, the Penguins are, at least in my opinion, in "win now" mode officially.
The Pens have scoring to be sure, Malkin and Crosby are potent as either a 1-2 pairing at center with whoever playing on their respective wings, and playing on the same line, they're virtually unstoppable. Hossa would actually be the least talented guy on a Malkin-Crosby-Hossa line, and thinking about that statement too long should be enough to make most people's heads explode.
So what's the problem?
It's too much too soon for a kid like Sid. I know, I know, he's been groomed to be the poster boy of the NHL and all, but no matter how good The Kid is, he isn't ready for the responsibility of taking this extremely young team on his own, admittedly broad, shoulders. There's virtually no veteran leadership on this team outside of "Scary" Gary Roberts and (former King) Darryl Sydor. Ty Conklin has played over his head filling in for Marc-Andre Fleury, but goalies are a mercurial bunch and the Game 1 goal of the 2006 Cup Finals might still rattle the U.S. born goalie. The Penguin defense is largely provided by the entire team as the D corps is minus any real outstanding defensive talent (Sergei Gonchar being oustanding offensive talent in my book).
With the wheels falling off in Ottawa, it's possible, if not highly likely, the Penguins win the Eastern Conference, but what happens if they run up against Detroit, or as much as I hate to admit it, Anaheim in the finals? Youth and scoring very rarely win Cups.
I guess my concern is that so much pressure will be placed on Sid, and it will be pressure that he gladly accepts because that seems to be just the kind of player and person he already has become, that it will be too much and he'll be burned by it- thinking it's his fault they got swept in the finals and all, when really, it's just management pushing too hard and expecting too much out of a kid of even Sid's considerable talent. Don't forget, this time two years ago, the Pens were dead last. The turnaround happened much quicker than anyone expected. Me personally, I think management should've remembered that and given the Pens another year before pulling some blockbuster, future-mortgaging move.
I have been known to over-analyze, however.
A not quite as big deal, but still pretty big- Richards does Dallas
Everyone has known for quite awhile that Tampa Bay wouldn't be able to keep St. Louis, Richards, and Lecavalier together forever. Richards, while extremely capable was found to be the odd man out and was sent to Dallas.
It's a great move for Dallas, replacing an aging superstar like Mike Modano with a superstar like Richards who is really just entering his prime. The Stars also didn't really give up anything but cap space and a few odd parts by doing this deal. Speaking from the point of view of a Pacific Conference rival (can we PLEASE put the Stars in the Central for God's sake and let them beat up on STL or Chicago for a change?) I've been waiting for the Stars to get worse, not bad, but at least worse for years now and it just won't happen. I'm sure Canadians love to hate the Stars. They've been so solid for so long in the South...
Colorado rebuilding Cup winning team
Am I nuts or did I not read like two weeks ago that Forsberg was NOT coming back to the NHL this season? All of a sudden, he's signed by the Avs and for good measure, they went and traded for Adam Foote. I'm just wondering if any calls were made to Roy.
Forsberg is can't lose as even if he sucks after being off for a year they only gave up money. The thing Avs fans should be concerned about is the giving up of draft picks in their deadline dealings. I don't think any sane person would give you odds on the Avs making it to the Western Conference finals, let alone the Stanley Cup finals, so again, why mortgage the future? They've got a few outstanding kids- Stasny and Liles, but other than that, it seems slim. This kind of dealing gets you stuck in that black hole of not being a contender, yet not being bad enough to get good picks. The Avs need to be careful with stuff like this.
Capitals get Fedorov, Cooke, and Huet
Not the worst moves, but again, not sure if they were the smartest. Feds has been blah the past few seasons, but I understand the idea of trying to spread scoring across lines. I'd assume they'll pair him with Ovechkin rather than Semin, but who knows. Cooke adds some grit which is always good for an East team, and Huet is a competent backup (not that it means much playing behind an ironman like 'Zilla).
It's sort of like Colorado's moves though- I don't really get it. None of those guys are going to put a team over the top, let alone a borderline team like Washington. Ah well, I guess uncle Ted needed something to blog about.
Sharks and Sabres Deal
This is one of those surprisingly serendipitous deals that really does benefit both teams evenly. San Jose who has uncharacteristically underachived this year and relied HEAVILY on Evgeni Nabokov (who deserves an MVP in my opinion) gets an overachiver in Brian Campbell. Buffalo, who let the two guys who were really good go and kept the one who might be last summer, have played over their heads just to stay in contention get an underachiever in Steve Bernier. I also like this move because I have Bernier in my fantasy league and he's much better than he's played this season. Hopefully some of the famous Buffalo work ethic will rub off on him.
Those were the big ones. The rest were more or less inconsequential.
I do like that Columbus was able to hang on to their kids. I know they're an expansion team and a still relatively young one at that, but they've sucked for too long. I like the direction Ken Hitchcock has them heading in and I like the fact they didn't give up just yet on Zherdev. Somebody's going to look like a genius if that kid ever gets his head on straight.
I also like the fact that the Kings got rid of Modry and Stuart. Too bad Blake was on the IR or we might have been able to ship him back to the Avs...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
