Final round, fight!

Series: Detroit Red Wings vs. Pittsburgh Penguins

My prediction: Penguins pull the UPSET in 6 games.

Thoughts: Last year, I predicted that the Red Wings would win in 6 games--and they did. Am I psychic? No. Am I really good at guessing how many games it takes to win a particular series? Obviously not, as evidenced by my prior blog posts during this year's playoffs.

But I do know this: both of these teams are awesome, are totally capable of scoring a lot of goals and have so-so goaltending. But I don't think we can expect to see games with 7-6 scores. It seems that everyone goes conservative once they reach the finals. I would love to see some blowout scores. It might happen--both teams have the tools to do so.

Now, the Red Wings are pretty much the same team as last year, except now they have Marian Hossa too. Hossa was on the Penguins last year, but figured that if he can't beat 'em Red Wings, then join 'em Red Wings.

And despite the offense that Hossa adds to Detroit, I can't help but feel that Pittsburgh will do it this year. Last year, they struggled and lost to the Red Wings. This is very much like the 1983 Edmonton Oilers, who lost to the Islanders that year in the Cup finals. That was the Islanders' fourth straight Stanley Cup. The next season, a more mature, more confident Oilers team would beat the Islanders, starting a dynasty of their own.

History is cyclical. It's time for a changing of the guard.

Penguins in six.

Round 3 recap

With only two series in the third round, I can be either half-right, completely right, or completely wrong. No more of this 75% stuff.


Series: Detroit Red Wings (2) vs. Chicago Blackhawks (4)

My prediction: Red Wings in 7.

What actually happened: Red Wings won in 5.

Thoughts: While I was hoping that the Blackhawks would pull off an upset and make it to the Stanley Cup Finals for the first time since 1992, I knew that they could not beat the Red Wings this year. The Wings depth players performed well, while most of the Blackhawks depth players were nowhere to be seen in this series. Byfuglien, Ladd and Bolland were all non-factors.

I was right about the winner, but really thought the 'Hawks would test the Wings better. Oh well. What do Cubs fans say? Oh yeah, Wait 'til next year!



Series: Pittsburgh Penguins (4) vs. Carolina Hurricanes (6)

My Prediction: Penguins in 7.

What actually happened: Penguins in 4.

Thoughts: Ah, stupid 'Canes. Two weeks ago, I stated

At this point, no team is just going to roll over and die. The Penguins will win the series, but it will be another hard-fought battle. The Hurricanes bumped off two teams ranked above them--the Devils in Round 1 and the Bruins in Round 2. Clearly, this team is for real.

Hard fought? This team is for real? Not only does that sound hokey and cliched, but it was wrong. I stated that the Hurricanes would not "roll over and die", but that's pretty much what they did. Other than the first game, which the Pens won by a single goal, the rest of the games were lopsided victories for Pittsburgh.

By the way, during Game 2 I heard Versus commentator Darryl Reaugh say "The Malkin Mind Meld," in reference to one of Evegeni Malkin's goals. Dude, seriously--keep Star Trek out of hockey. I can see the appeal of alliteration, but using it for a thinly-veiled sci-fi reference is just sad. Now, had Tomas Vokoun been tending the nets for either team, Vokoun Mind Meld might have been funny.

Well, I did pick the winners of each series, but come on--anyone could have done that. Those kids from Mozambique that we see in those "Right to Play" ads could have picked the conference winners. I'm not saying that kids from Mozambique don't know hockey--I'm just saying that once the Sharks and Capitals were out of the way, everyone was smelling a rematch of last year's final.

Great weather for a sweater

I recently wrote a hockey column for The DePaulia, recounting how the Blackhawks have turned things around in the past 1 1/2 years, and how popular the team is right now. Sure, the Hawks might not make it past this round against the Red Wings, but they've done a helluva job.

You can read the article here.

Not quite a "blast"

Today, after watching the Blackhawks lose 5-2 to the Red Wings, my girlfriend Shellie and I got some shopping done at Target.

And like a junkie, I am always drawn to the trading card aisle. I must need to get my head checked because I know that blaster boxes of trading cards are a waste of time and money. But as a fool and his money soon part ways, I purchases a blaster box of 2008-09 Upper Deck Series 2 Hockey cards.

Here's what I got:

-- 51 base cards

-- 2 Young Guns (Brad Staubitz, Teddy Purcell)

-- 3 Victory update cards

-- 3 Victory Rookie update cards (Petr Vrana, Dwight Helminen, Nathan Oystrick)

-- 1 Tales of the Cup insert (Clark Gillies)

Wow...what a waste! Sure, you're not always going to get an awesome rookie card in a box--especially a blaster box.

But let's do a little math here. Don't worry, I promise it will be easy.

A single pack of Upper Deck Hockey cards costs $2.99 and contains 8 cards. Young Guns are found in 1 out of every 4 packs (1:4).

A blaster box of Upper Deck Hockey cards contains 12 packs--but the packs only have 5 cards each. Additionally, Young Guns are seeded at a rate of 1 in 6 (1:6).

So, what's the better "value"? Glad you asked.

A blaster box gets you 60 cards for $20.

To get 60 cards from single packs, you'd have to purchase 7 1/2 packs of cards. For argument's sake, let's just assume you could purchase a "half pack". Your total cost would be $22.45.

Purchasing single packs would cost more to get the same amount of cards. Besides, grabbing eight packs at random from the shelf does not mean that you will get two Young Guns...it means you might get two Young Guns. And seriously folks, we know that's why we buy these damn cards.

At least when you buy a blaster box, you almost always get two Young Guns.

But now, I must voice a few gripes that most of us are thinking anyways:

1. The blaster box does not state how many cards per pack. This is a recent development in the design of these boxes, as sets released earlier this year state on the blaster boxes how many cards per pack. This feels very "bait-and-switch" to me. One might assume that if a single pack contains 8 cards, then each pack in a blaster box also contains 8 cards. That's a reasonable conclusion, albeit an incorrect one. The fact that Upper Deck does not state how many cards you get in a pack (or a box) should be illegal. Seriously. If you buy a box of tissue or a bottle of aspirins, it clearly states how many you get. Why are trading cards exempt from this?

2. The insertion of Victory Update cards. For those of us trying to build a set of Upper Deck Series 2 Hockey, it is frustrating to get one Victory Update card in every other pack--or every pack if you buy the 8-card single packs. Six out of 60 cards I got were Victory Update cards--that's 10% of the box. Most of us would rather get another Upper Deck card--bringing us closer to completing our sets--than a Victory Update card. Plus, I got more Victory Update Rookies than I did Young Guns. Which brings me to my third point...

3. Cost of Upper Deck-brand cards. Really, what is the difference between the $2.99-a-pack Upper Deck cards and the 99-cents-per-pack Victory cards? Both are printed full-bleed, are ultra glossy and have full-color backs. The only difference is, Upper Deck sells the Upper Deck-brand cards for more. Sure, we have a 1-in-300 chance of getting some dumb memorabilia card. So what? That just drives up the cost. Upper Deck cards are really not any better than Victory cards, quality-wise. Therefore, they should be a buck a pack. But their not, which leads us nicely to point number 4.

4. Cost per card. Time for more easy math. A blaster box costs $20.

$20 divided by 60 cards = 33.3 cents per card. That's 3 cards for $1.

But, living in Chicago, I have to pay 10.25% sales tax. So let's recalculate.

$20 plus 10.25% tax = $22.04 divided by 60 cards = 36.73 cents per card. That's closer to 3 cards for $1.10.

Unless you live in Chicago like I do--which has the highest sales tax in the U.S.--you'll pay less for cards than I do, but are still paying about 33 cents per card. If someone at a card show tried to sell me Upper Deck commons for 33 cents each, I'd have to lacerate them with a rough-edged OPC card from the early 1980s.

And yet today at Target, I willingly--and foolishly--paid that amount. Like I said, a fool and his money.

... ... ...

On a related note, I still need about 70 base cards from Series One and 60 base cards from Series Two. If you have any, please take a look at my Wantlist.

Likewise, if there are some 2008-09 Upper Deck Hockey cards you need for your set, check out my Trade List. I'd rather trade with someone than pay 33 cents a card.

Round 3, fight!

Hockey's "Final Four" starts today, with the Chicago Blackhawks facing off against the Detroit Red Wings in the



Series: Detroit Red Wings (2) vs. Chicago Blackhawks (4)

My prediction: Red Wings in 7, but if the 'Hawks win, they'll have to do it in 6.

Thoughts: Has any team gone from non-playoff contention to Stanley Cup winner?

Actually, yes. The Montreal Canadiens did not make the playoffs in 1970, but won the Stanley Cup in 1971 (ironically, at the expense of the Blackhawks). So, a team can turn it around in a year and go from zeroes to heroes. And the Blackhawks can be that team.

But let's be realistic here. The Red Wings are pretty much the same team as they were last year, minus Dominick Hasek (who was a non-factor) and plus Marian Hossa (who helped the Penguins reach the Finals last year). They are an awesome team that became a little awesome-r with the addition of Hossa.

I don't think goaltender Chris Osgood can carry the Red Wings, but they have so many high-scoring players that it does not make a difference. Henrik Zetterberg, Johan Franzen, Pavel Datsyuk and Marian Hossa are all deadly with the puck, and Nick Lidstrom ain't no slouch, either.

But the Blackhawks won't go down easily. They made it this far for a reason. They, too, have a lot of scoring potential, with Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews, Martin Havlat and Patrick Sharp. Maybe these guys aren't as dynamic as the Red Wings scorers--yet--but they've all come through in the past two series.



Series: Pittsburgh Penguins (4) vs. Carolina Hurricanes (6)

My Prediction: Penguins in 7.

Thoughts: At this point, no team is just going to roll over and die. The Penguins will win the series, but it will be another hard-fought battle. The Hurricanes bumped off two teams ranked above them--the Devils in Round 1 and the Bruins in Round 2. Clearly, this team is for real.

So are the Penguins. They have two of the best players in the league--Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin. Bill Guerin has been stepping it up too. As the Penguins proved in Game 7 against the Washington Capitals, their offense can be devastating.

Really, it will have to be Pittsburgh's offense that wins this series. Pens goalie Marc-Andre Fleury has not proven himself to be a standout goaltender, and stands to be the Penguins biggest weakness. Things will get troublesome if the 'Canes learn how to exploit that weakness. Of course, they did solve Martin Brodeur.

Looks like it's going to be another Detroit-Pittsburgh matchup in the Stanley Cup Finals. But, I would love it to be Chicago-Pittsburgh--even more so because the Penguins are my sister's favorite team, and she still won't drop the fact that the Penguins beat the Blackhawks in the 1992 finals. A rematch is long overdue.

Round 2 recap

Round 2 of the playoffs was by far the best hockey I have seen in a long time. Three of the 4 series went down to the bitter end and were settled in 7 games. The fourth series went 6 games, but like the other series was also very close.

Here is the breakdown of my Round 2 predictions and the actual results.


Series: Detroit Red Wings (1) vs. Anaheim Ducks (4)

My prediction: Red Wings in 7.

What actually happened: Red Wings in 7.

Thoughts: You can't get much closer than this. Most of the games were within 1 goal, but the Red Wings did win by 3 goals in Game 4 and Game 5. Regardless, I was right about this one going 7 games. Feelin' pretty smug...



Series: Vancouver Canucks (2) vs. Chicago Blackhawks (3)

My Prediction: Blackhawks pull UPSET in 6.

What actually happened: Blackhawks pull UPSET in 6.

Thoughts: Oh yeah! There are some games in this series where the Blackhawks looked lethargic--namely Games 3 and 4 in Chicago. But in Game 2 they were dynamite. The Hawks had their ups and downs in the series, but when they did good, they did really good. Their big guns like Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews came through, but so did depth players like Adam Burish and Dustin Byfuglien. And the fact that the scored 7 goals against Canucks goalie Roberto Luongo is pretty amazing,. I also correctly predicted that this would be settled in 6 games. The smugness continues!



Series: Boston Bruins (1) vs. Carolina Hurricanes (4)

My Prediction: Bruins in 5.

What actually happened: Carolina UPSET in 7.

Thoughts: I guess the Hurricanes are a better team than I give them credit for. But what the hell happened to the Bruins? They were the best in the East, and self-destructed a la the Sharks. I'm kind of disappointed, because I would have loved a Bruins vs. Penguins conference finals. I'm a little less smug, now...



Series: Washington Capitals (2) vs. Pittsburgh Penguins (3)

My Prediction: Penguins UPSET in 6.

What actually happened: Penguins UPSET in 7.

Thoughts: The Penguins-Capitals series by far was the best of the playoffs so far, and might prove to be the best series of the playoffs, period. The first 6 games were close, and both Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin were awesome. Pittsburgh's 6-2 win in Game 7 was the only real decisive victory in the series.

This round, 3 of my 4 predictions were correct, as far as series winners go. That's another 75% for me--same as last round, where I correctly picked 6 of 8.

Hawks make it to Round 3

As I astutely predicted they would two weeks back, the Chicago Blackhawks have won Round 2 of the playoffs by beating the Vancouver Canucks in 6 games.

I'm not surprised.

My reason? The Hawks won Game 2. I don't remember the exact statistic, but it seems that whichever team wins Game 2 more often than not goes on to win the series. In fact, it's been said that Game 2 is more important than Game 1, when the teams are still feeling each other out.

If you remember Game 2 of the Chicago-Vancouver series, the Hawks won 6-3, were pretty much the dominant team and controlled the game. Their stars shined brighter in Game 2.

Game 3 and Game 4 were different stories. The Hawks played horribly and lost in Game 3, and did not deserve to win Game 4. But they did, along with the next two games, and now they are in the Conference Finals.

This is awesome! The Hawks have not made it this far since 1995. But what was even more exciting was that they scored 7 goals in Game 6. Sure, they let in 5 goals too, but Vancouver is no slouch. Two seasons back, if the Blackhawks allowed 3 goals in a game, they were toast. Now they can let in 4 or 5 and still win.

The Blackhawks have potential to hold their own in the next round because they are not just getting scoring from their best players like Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews--they are also getting goals from guys like Adam Burish and Dustin Byfuglien. While every championship team has top-tier players who do the bulk of the scoring, they also have several guys who normally don't score step it up and help out.

Mind you, Adam Burisn scored the game winner. Of course, Patrick Kane (3G, 1A) and Jonathan Toews (2G, 1A) won the game for the Hawks. But if Burish hadn't chipped in when he did, it could have gone to OT.

Speaking of Kane, his third goal was amazing. One-on-one with a Vancouver defender, Kane faked a shot, fooling the Canucks' D-man, then took his real shot, fooling Canucks goalie Roberto Luongo. That single play showed that Kane can play at the same level as Alexander Ovechkin or Sidney Crosby.

One person's puck...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the saying goes "One man's puck is another man's junk." At least, that was the case yesterday, when my girlfriend Shellie and I investigated a few boxes of discarded books in the alley. You usually don't find anything good when people throw books away--just romance novels and The Da Vinci Code. I, on the other hand scored a hat trick and found two pucks and a hockey book amongst the otherwise mundane collection of travel guides and cook books.

One person's junk...my pucks. Or treasures. Or however that saying goes.

Propped up atop one of the boxes, almost as if it wanted to be found, was a Chicago Blackhawks puck. I don't normally collect pucks because the leagues and teams make so many different ones on purpose--collect 'em all, kids! But free is good. Heck, five bucks would be good. Hockey pucks sell for $8 to $15, depending on whether they are "game" pucks or "commemorative" pucks. This 'Hawks puck is of the game category, but it is not game-used.

Digging around in a box of sex-advice books--the alley being a perfect place to find those, come to think of it--I also unearthed this Chicago Wolves puck. The puck is adorned with a Gaelic or Celtic-style font and shamrocks. Every year, the Wolves play a game or two in green St. Patrick's day jerseys, and sell these shamrock-infested pucks. Some of the design seems worn off, particularly in the ring of green that is below the Wolves logo. The backside is also a bit scuffed up. Was it caught at a game? Who knows. I'm just glad I rescued it before some dumb kid used it to break a window.

Shellie found this book called The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hockey. Because, apparently, only a complete idiot would want to watch hockey, right? Shellie asked me if I wanted this hockey book, which prompted me to pick up the discarded copy of Dogs for Dummies and ask her if she wanted that book.

Obviously, Shellie--a long-time dog lover and owner of three basset hounds--needs a guide to dogs as much as I need a guide to hockey. But paging through this Idiot's book, it seemed to have quite a bit of semi-obscure factoids that I'll find interesting.

By the way, the collection of books itself painted an interesting picture of the person who discarded them. Shellie surmised that the types of books--travel guides, health-conscious cookbooks and sex/relationship books--pretty much confirms that the previous owner was a woman. I mean, how many dudes do you know with "healthy eating" cookbooks? The owner of these books probably went to a Blackhawks game and a Wolves game this season, bought this Idiot's book to better understand what the hell Brian Englbom is talking about, then broke up with her boyfriend, concluded that all men are stupid, that she was tired of cooking healthy meals, and that hockey was a waste of time.

Or maybe she just needed the space on her shelf.

Ode to the Ice Bats

Late last week, I heard that the American Hockey League (AHL) granted an expansion franchise to Austin, Texas. Immediately, I got excited--would this be the return of the Austin Ice Bats?

To my dismay, the answer is no.

Instead, the Austin-based team will be known as the Texas Stars, and will be affiliated with the NHL's Dallas Stars.

The Dallas Stars did not have their own AHL team this season. Thus, they had to disperse their minor-leaguers among several other AHL teams. Part of the reason why the Dallas Stars had to get rid of Sean Avery was because none of the minor league teams they had agreements with would take Avery for a conditioning assignment once he finished his anger management classes and was reinstated into the league.

Then again I'm not sure why the AHL has insisted on being a 29-team league for so long, especially IF the AHL is the premier minor league AND there are 30 NHL teams. The math doesn't add up.

30 NHL teams / 29 AHL teams = WTF?

The Austin Ice Bats have played in either the WPHL or CHL--low-level minor leagues--from their inception in 1996 until 2008, when they had to disband operations due to lack of funds and fan support, as well as the rumored (now true) AHL franchise in Austin. Any team that can survive playing in Texas-based hockey leagues for 12 years definitely deserved a long look as an AHL franchise.

While this most likely marks the end of the Ice Bats'--or at least their run in Austin--it also gives us another boring-as-hell hockey logo.


Great. The Dallas Stars foisted a slightly-updated version of their lame logo on their affiliate.


They also foisted their dumb name upon them too. From 1967 to 1993, they were the Minnesota North Stars, which was one of the coolest team names in hockey. Changing that to just the Stars when they headed south was as lazy as their logo design.

Two years ago, the Dallas Stars were affiliated with an AHL team in Iowa. That team's name? The Iowa Stars. Ah, always an original. I'm sure you can imagine what their logo looked like.

The Ice Bats, on the other hand, have a badass name and logo. As far as "animal-with-hockey-stick" logos go, the Ice Bats are second only to the Pittsburgh Penguins.


One other minor detail (no pun intended) that I like about the Bats' logo is the pattern on the gloves--it's the Texas Flag. It's not just a screeching bat with a hockey stick--it's a screeching bat with a hockey stick AND state pride.

Just for the hell of it--as if I don't have enough things going on already--I created a "What if" logo, showing us what the Ice Bats might have looked like if they were affiliated with the Dallas Stars. I might be onto something here.