Hi, we're back with part two of our questions. We look forward to your responses and thoughts!


Question 6 (from Mochoson): Explain why the Toronto Maple Leafs will or won’t make the NHL playoffs. Who is going to be their best player? Who is going to disappoint?

Clouts: Lame. You know darn well I am going to get clobbered for my answer here.

The Bruins, Habs, Rangers, Flyers, Penguins, Lightning, Capitals, will make the playoffs next season. That leaves the Sabres, Leafs, Hurricanes, Islanders and Panthers fighting for the last spot. I would put the Sabres ahead of the Leafs. Not sure about the other teams though. So I guess I am predicting a 9th in the East finish for TO. So to answer your question, the Leafs won’t make the playoffs.

The Leafs best player will be James Reimer. The player that will disappoint if Clarke MacArthur, as last season’s point production was about 15pts better than his talent is.

Yost: The Toronto Maple Leafs are going to make the playoffs, but it's not going to be easy. Still, you heard it here first, and remember, this is coming from the Ottawa Senators blogger.

My rationale regarding this team is quite simple: Their positioning in the Northeast division hasn't really changed, but the team is one year older and subsequently one year maturer. Offensively, the team has enough explosion through Phil Kessel, Nikolai Kulemin, Mikhail Grabovski, Tim Connolly, and Clarke MacArthur, all guys who are consistent presences around the net on a nightly basis.

Even better, the team finally has scoring depth past the past top-two lines, and in today's NHL, that's far more important than rolling a top-heavy line that handcuffs the rest of the team. Unless you're Randy Carlyle icing the RPG line every night, you really don't have a choice. Build twelve deep, not three studs and nine plugs.

The defense has wildly improved from that turnstile mentality of a couple years ago, and that's thanks in large part to Brian Burke and the rest of the front office. They got rid of one of the more overrated players in hockey history in Tomas Kaberle, then somehow convinced a team that Brett Lebda was worth more than the gum on Ron Wilson's shoe. They're still stuck with Mike Komisarek, but he's still a fairly capable top-sixer. Obviously, this team will rest its laurels on shot-blocking dynamo Luke Schenn, the steady if unspectacular Carl Gunnarsson, captain Dion Phaneuf, and prospect Cody Franson. A decent corps with potential to improve depending on how the goaltending shakes out.

Here's where I'm worried - goaltending. Incredible, huh? The entire fan base is so worried about the defense and consistent scoring, yet I'm going to try and scare you between the pipes. Listen, I like James Reimer as a goalie, but the expectations that this kid is suddenly ready to handle an entire season as a starting goaltender in Toronto are incredibly high. Reimer was solid last year, but I thought he was the beneficiary of a little bit of luck. Now, sports fans will tell you it's always better to be lucky than good, and that might be the case. Unfortunately, luck doesn't last forever. Reimer could very well come out and post another spectacular season, but I think that if the Maple Leafs falter, it's because of shaky play here rather than anywhere else.


Question 7 (from Oilprincess): Do you think that it is plausible that there is a conspiracy involving the NHL and its unyielding support of American teams? It seems to me that the NHL and Garry Bettman are DESPERATE to have more Americans buy into hockey and will do whatever it takes to grow the market.

Yost: Yeah, I actually have the name of the conspiracy. It's called 'We have to sell the NHL to the United States because it remains the biggest sports market on Planet Earth.'

Seriously, the entire 'conspiracy theory' about the States in general is just plain ridiculous. Gary Bettman might be at the butt of every joke these days, but he didn't get into that position by hoping and praying. Every business-mind in the world would tell you the same thing - to grow sports in North America, the United States must be the focal point.

In the NHL, the league clearly benefits from having Canada represent a large portion of their league(seven teams and counting). In Canada, it's hockey, then everything else. In the States, hockey's almost an afterthought, a tertiary sport that constantly is thrown on the backburner past football and baseball.

Canada's always going to be the better market pound-for-pound between the two. However, the 'growth' of the sport rests entirely in the United States. By my count, and this is strictly by population, the United States has 49 of the top 56 markets between the two countries. #8 for Canada - London - has a rough population of ~350k, which is the equivalent to that of #50 in Wichita, Kansas.

Clouts: If anything, there is a conspiracy now to get as many teams in Canada as fast as possible.

The league is not making much money right now. Perhaps I should clarify: Most teams aren’t making much money. The ones who do earn are in big centers where the game is well established (ie. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago), and in Canada. The Canadian Dollar seems to be getting stronger, not weaker. Full rinks, fans who buy all sorts of merchandise, and the Canadian economy being what it is compared to the US, has league leaders thinking Canada should have nine teams within the next few seasons. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Quebec City get Phoenix next season, and Hamilton and/or somewhere in the GTO to get a different team (maybe even an expansion team) as soon as the right building is available. I am not sure the rink in Hamilton would be good enough by modern NHL standards.


Question 8 (from Adam French): Will Mike Smith/Jason Labarbera be the worst duo in the NHL or will Jose Theodore/Scott Clemenson be?

Clouts: I actually think the worst duo in goal this season will be Steve Mason and Mark Dekanich in Columbus. Last season, Mason didn’t look like he belonged in the AHL, let alone the NHL.

If I had to pick the worst pairing listed in the question, Let’s go with Smith and Labarbera in Phoenix. I don’t think most teams would want either as their backup, let alone starter. Who will be the starter out of these two? Why has Phoenix done so little this off-season? There has to be someone they can trade for. What about sending Kyle Turris and one other asset to Vancouver for Cory Schneider? Do something.

Yost: I'm not even sure that oddsmakers in Las Vegas can set the overs high enough for Phoenix Coyotes games next season. At no point have I ever been convinced that Mike Smith is capable of starting over the course of the entire season, and even during that fluky heater during 2008-2009 I always thought he was a pretty shaky netminder. The guy just gives up horrible goal after horrible goal, and although athletic, his positioning and poise is simply lackluster.

Oh, and Jason LaBarbera? That's a disgrace. Again, just like Smith, he had one fluky hot year in 2009-2010, posting a .928 save percentage and 2.13 GAA. Last season, those numbers made their obvious regression to a .908 and 3.26 GAA. What's fascinating - those splits are still high. HockeyReference's GPS(Goalie Point Shares) estimate that LaBarbera was probably responsible for about 2.5 points for the PHX coyotes in 17 GP. When his save percentage, in all probability, dips again behind a lackluster club, his GPS(and overall value) will drop accordingly. Good luck, Phoenix.


Question 9 (from JSX): Worst movie ever, and why?

Yost: I've burned on this topic before, and honestly, I'm starting to feel bad about this take. Funny People, the Adam Sandler "comedy" or "drama" - hint, it's neither - is about as bad as it gets.

I'll never forget the day - August 1, 2009. My girlfriend and I decide to spend a night at the movies, and upon her recommendation, we see the new Adam Sandler movie because Adam Sandler's always funny. I check the Wikipedia page, and there's some decent characters aside from Sandler. How bad could it be? Twenty bucks and 2.5 hours later, and what did I get in return? Less than nothing. I can't even crack a joke about losing brain cells, because understanding this piece of work was like reading Tolstoy's War and Peace upside down.

The movie opened with a couple of moderately funny jokes, most notably RZA making fun of Seth Rogan. I believe I cracked a smile or two. From there on, I distinctly remember a collection of pity smiles, then groans, then full-fledged facepalms. Every joke seemed to center around an f-bomb or small male organ, and while I'm the first to laugh at those depending on originality and content, these just flat out sucked. 150 minutes of one-liners. Fantastic.

Even more amazing - the comedy not being 'funny', which seems like a fundamental flaw to begin with - wasn't the main issue. No. The main issue is that the plot to this movie was about as enigmatic and mystifying as it gets.

In fact, the three times I half-smiled might have been the highlights of this movie. The main problem, as alluded to above, was that I left the theater with no inkling as to what the movie was about. How do I explain 'Funny People'? It's a movie about - .... I haven't the slightest idea. Honestly, none.

First, he beats a fatal disease forty minutes into the movie. Okay, the story is making sense - Sandler's taking an up-and-coming Rogan(fellow comedian in movie) under his wing and all that good stuff. But wait - wait a minute! Now there's a scene where Sandler is in some broad from Big Daddy's house, seemingly for eternity. Quite the plot change. What's the end result? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Sandler literally leaves the house with the story just falling flat on its face, and then we fast forward to another scene where Sandler is rebuilding his life or some happy horsepoop.

For those that saw this movie, do me a favor: Find me some storyline in this entire movie. I wasn't expecting some thick and juicy plot for a comedy, but at least let me know what the hell is going on. Guy takes rookie comedian under his belt, alternates between loving and hating him, halfway through cures a disease, spends an hour with some girl he admires, leaves, then gives Rogan a few jokes and the movie ends.

All that, and I haven't touched on the ending. Oh boy, the ending.

Do we learn that Rogan becomes a successful comedian under Sandler's tutelage? No.
Do we learn that Sandler dies, but his legacy lives on through Rogan? No.
Do we learn that Sandler beats the disease and him and Rogan build a comedic friendship? No.

In the end, a guy ends up at a service deli and Sandler is like "Yo, I was wrong about life. Here's some funny jokes."

Instant. Classic.

Clouts: I’ve seen all sorts of terrible movies. There are different types of terrible. For example, when I was a kid, my friends had this thing about bringing over intentionally bad movies like Big Meat Eater, the Toxic Avenger and Deathstalker. I don’t think I can count movies that are intentionally bad as being the worst ever, because they want to suck. It’s like Showgirls: There is no way that was a serious movie. It was hilarious.

My girlfriend made me watch a movie called Killers with Ashton Kutcher. Now this was a horrible movie trying to be fun and entertaining. Most “chick flicks” make me want to rip my eyes out with a salad fork.

The movie Sahara…another piece of absolute crap. God damn, there are lots of horrible movies out there, when I think about it. I have a huge movie library – One of my collection hobbies – And you won’t find many stinkers in it. I haven’t seen the newest X-Men movie, but the other ones made me want to punch myself in the face.

If you want to know the type I watch, here are 10 movies off the top of my head that I think are great: Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, Starship Troopers, American Beauty, Amadeus, Star Wars (original movie and The Empire Strikes Back), The Matrix. The Two Towers (extended edition), and Napoleon Dynamite. I have about 1,000 movies in my library, so it would take me a while to make a 10 best list.


Question 10 (from Deadpoulet): What will happen with Doughty and Parise? Signed for how much and how long? Dealt?

Clouts: Doughty and Parise will be signed. For Doughty, it will be 10 years, $6mil per average. Parise will be more 5 years, $6.5mil per average. Neither player will be dealt.

Yost: Signed & signed. Not one of these players is even sniffing the trade block this season.

I will say this, though - don't rule out a potential move of Zach Parise in the future. Not really quite sure what the situation is regarding his contract right now in New Jersey(he's scheduled for an arbitration hearing on the third of August), but I could seriously see the Devils bringing in some realizable assets for his services and rebuilding on the fly.

I can't even begin to fathom what the return is for a talent like Parise. Very rarely do we see players moved like him in big spots, and my guess is if New Jersey even considered the idea - no evidence they are right now - they'd look at a future trade deadline as the most opportunistic time. And why not? Can you imagine what a team like Toronto, Calgary, or other big-market clubs desperate for a hired-gun to chase down a playoff spot would pay? The price would be exorbitant, and they'd probably fork it up.

Join the Discussion: » Comments » Post New Comment

» Goodbye and Good Luck

» Ranking Top 5 Roster Groups - Blog #1

» Mods and Rockers

» The Reverse Psychology Blog

» The 10 Least Interesting Teams in the NHL