NHL General Manager's Boot Camp - the Summer 2008 Edition

On the brink of the NHL playoffs, those teams that are shut out of the post season may well be thinking of the golf course when they should be pondering next season.

While the players may have a month or two to dally about the tee, the general managers have a much tougher row to hoe. Between tee times, business lunches, massages, and meetings with their financial advisors, GMs have to get down to the business of creating next year's Stanley Cup contender.

Good news, GMs! I have decided to make your jobs much easier this season by offering an intensive Boot Camp! Whether you are a seasoned veteran such as Holland or Sutter, or a fresh faced rookie like Hull, we've got a workshop for you, with lessons from your past and present compatriots!

(Don't worry about the tee times, either; as always, the event will be conveniently held in proximity of at least 7 world class golf courses. )

After a keynote address Friday evening by president Gary Bettman, a black tie cocktail party and schmooze session will be held in the hotel.

The tentative schedule is as follows:

1. Free Agents: Fierce or Freeloaders? by Wendell Clark and Ray Bourque

2. How to keep your team in the red and out of Canada by Gary Bettman, Bill Wirtz and Barry Shenkarow

3. Kids with Skills: Find them, keep them by Ray Shero and Kevin Lowe

4. How to run a profitable club and never win by Richard Peddie and the ghost of Harold Ballard

5. Shoestring Budget, Cup Contender by Lou Lamoriello

6. Winnning in the regular season means squat in the playoffs: A personal perspective by Marshall Johnston

7. Dumb Trades and how to avoid them by Bob Gainey and Daryl Sutter

Don't delay, book your spaces now!

Oh, unless you happen to be Cliff Fletcher, Dave Nonis, Jay Feaster, Garth Snow, or Dean Lombardi. Your spots are already reserved, and attendance is mandatory.

Bertuzzi-Moore saga a tragedy, not a soap opera

Once again, Steve Moore and Todd Bertuzzi are in the media spotlight.

Bertuzzi is arguing that Marc Crawford should be named by Moore in his lawsuit (and thus contribute to any damages Moore might eventually be awarded) because he told his players, in the locker room on March 8, 2004, that Moore “should pay the price” for his hit on Marcus Naslund.

Double check that date in the above paragraph. March 8, 2004. Four years have passed since the tragic events occurred. Why is this still dragging on?

I could resurrect the arguments on whether Bertuzzi’s punch or the ensuing dog pile actually caused Moore’s injury, but I won’t. I tired of that argument three years ago, as most of you did.

To most of us, the issue is long settled, and we really don’t want to hear anything more about it. That was my initial thought when I started reading the headlines this week.

The more I looked into it, though, the more I realized what a tragedy this actually has become. In a soap opera, someone will eventually be punished, the victor moving on to the next story in the sub-plot. That isn’t going to happen here.

Two men have had the course of their lives changed by a single moment of stupidity.

One man continues to play the game he loves, but with a marred reputation and a sub-par skill level.

The other man has never been able to return to the game, and must watch the man responsible continue his life, making millions while he struggles through rehabilitation. Can you imagine how that must feel?

I don’t need Joni Mitchell to look at both sides now, and realize that this is a no-win situation. Not for Bertuzzi, for Moore, or for the NHL.

This lawsuit is still in the discovery phase. I’m sorry, but if a criminal had to wait four years from charges to trial, the entire world would be crying about due process and timely justice. Did Crawford tell his players to make Moore pay? Possibly. He wouldn’t need to, however, because that was the thought running through every player’s minds anyway. That’s the mentality of the NHL. Had the instigator penalty not existed, Moore probably would have been jumped immediately after the hit, and that would have been the end of it. (Let’s not get into the instigator argument here, though. Perhaps later.)

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the lawsuit. What I’m arguing for is resolution to this issue, once and for all. No more dragging in other people, looking for others to blame.

Resolution, so two men might get on with their lives. One playing the game he loves, and the other finding a new path in the world. Until this lawsuit is finished, both men and their families will be forced to live in the past.

Therein lies the tragedy of it all.

Dion pouting...again

In one of my favourite fanatasy novels, a teenage king is reminded by one of his advisors that "a king who has to remind everyone his is king...is no king at all."

Perhaps Stephane Dion should take that advice when dealing with unruly Quebec wing of his party.

Following a meeting with the Quebec executive, Dion stated, "I'm the leader, and I don't want any more indiscipline."

Well, thank goodness for that, Mr. Dion. Obviously you don't want dissention in the ranks. Unfortunately, life isn't a fantasy novel.

The question is, what will he do about it?

Oh wait, I know the answer. Nothing.

Just like he always does.

If you want to remain leader, Mr. Dion, I humbly suggest you start leading.

Conservatives against censorship

Sometimes I am frightened by what I see on television.

When the show that I'm watching features Mary Walsh and some guy from some lobbyist group, I would normally bet that Walsh will provide more entertainment value. I mean, this is the lady that slathered bright red lipstick all over Stephen Harper, tells dirty jokes to Paul Martin, and constantly reminded Canadians not to take our politicians seriously.

Imagine my surprise when the greatest source of my amusement came from Charles McVety, the president of the Canada Family Action Coalition. Mary Walsh wasn't even close.

He was on the Hour to discuss Bill C-10, which will allow the government to refuse funding for film projects that are deemed offensive. No wait, sorry, it's an income tax bill. Oops.

I'm not getting into a debate over that. To me, it's fairly cut and dried. Quite honestly, if what is being created is so great, you shouldn't need my tax dollars to pay for it. The issue itself wasn't the source of my amusement; nor was it the demeanor of the host, who obviously wanted to strangle McVety. It was a quote about censorship.

"I'm a Conservative!" exclaimed McVety. "I'm against censorship!"

Are you laughing yet? Because I am.

Conservatives? Censorship? No, the current Conservative government doesn't apply any principles to the general public that it wouldn't apply to its own party.

By the way, when was the last time Stephen Harper faced a media scrum without pre-submitted questions? The last time a cabinet minister was able to make a comment of their own violition?

Short answer: you can't remember, because it doesn't happen. It's a tightly censored ship that the Conservatives run. And the CFAC is near and dear to the government's heart. That's why this remark so glaringly stands out in my mind.

On their website, the CFAC applauds the efforts of Maclean's magazine columnist by Mark Steyn, currently facing charges from the Canadian Human Rights Commission for published material that offended members of the Muslim community (from his book America Alone, discussing the dangerous rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the western world). I agree that the charges are a travesty. If the media can't stir up controversy, then what is the point? I don't agree with all Steyn has to say, but hey, that's my right as a free-thinking Canadian.

Yes, the CFAC do stand for freedom of speech. When it suits their purposes. Immediately below the news links is a quote from Chris Hedges (author of I don't Believe in Atheists), attacking atheists as fundamentalists themselves. Ones that shouldn't be able to spread their blasphemy to our children. Because they (the Christian right) don't agree with it.

Hmm. Conundrum. Funny. Don't you think? So where exactly does the CFAC stand?

We're against censorship, as long as we can say what we like about you. You, on the other hand, can't say anything about us, or your own beliefs, because it offends us.

Just as a note, all the links on the website that explain the CFAC views currently do not work. The donation button, however, is alive and functioning well.

The NDP play hardball

For some reason, when I wrote a complaint letter to Jack Layton several years ago, I was added to the NDP’s mass mailing list.

By virtue of my own laziness, I remain on the list to this day. Once again, laziness proves fruitful for accidental amusement.

Jack Layton and the NDP are, as a federal political party, deeply concerned with helping Canadians and voicing these concerns in the Commons.

Oh wait. No they aren’t. They are concerned with the interest rates on your major credit cards.

That’s right. Forget governance. No one listens to all that whining anyway, particularly the “we don’t have a majority but we rule with an iron fist” Conservatives.

Jack Layton wants to stick it to the Conservatives and their big banker buddies by urging thousands of Canadians to demand lower credit card interest rates.

Now, I’m not implying that Canadians aren’t carrying massive amounts of debt on high interest credit cards, and that it isn’t a worry. We all worry about debt. But really, Jack, don’t you have more pressing issues to pursue? Or more effective ways to pick at Harper?

Because, quite honestly, he’s going to laugh when he reads this email. Don’t worry, someone will forward it to him. Maybe even me.

It’s just amusing that the NDP is so concerned about this, considering their own spending track record. Actually, it rather makes sense. Jack must be trying to improve his credit record before the next election.

Thank goodness for politicians. Otherwise, we’d only have celebrities and the monarchy to ridicule.