Video Game Nostalgia 1 - Astrosmash

This is the first in hopefully a bunch of blog updates about old(and not so old) video game memories that I have gained over my 28 years of video gaming. They will remember the good times and the bad, the hot and the cold, the 8 bit to the hi def, and beyond.

First up on the list is Astrosmash, an Intellivision(I'll get into Intellivision's superiority over Atari 2600 in another post) game that was originally called Avalanche but was changed to take advantage of the space game surge. It was one of the more popular games for the Intellivision, and for good reason. It was addictive, easy to learn, and had a perfect difficulty curve. You basically moved your cannon back and forth along the ground, getting points for each rock that you destroyed. 10 points for big rocks, 20 points for small rocks. For each rock you missed, you got deducted the same amount. Sound simple? Sure. But as you scored more, the pace would quicken, the background beat would quicken,(a simple thump...thump...thump) and the background would change colors. Every time the background changed colors, a new feature would be introduced, up to 100,000. Some of the additions were UFOs that would shoot down cluster-bullets, those were easy for a bunch of points, and my hated nemesis, heatseeking missiles. The heat seekers would follow you around once they hit the ground, and you'd have to use your hyperspace to get out of the way, and even that was a gamble, as it might put you in the path of a rock, or worse. The ultimate enemy for this game, though, were the spinners. If the spinners hit the ground, you were dead. No ifs, ands, or buts. You were dead. Sometimes there'd be 3 spinners on the screens in the higher levels. The good news was that every 1000 points, you'd get an extra life, and when the multiplier was up on 6x or greater, they came quickly. Unfortunately, they would go quickly, and Astrosmash penalized you points for dieing, too, so you'd have to re-accumulate those points, AND an additional 1000 points to keep getting new guys.

I remember getting somewhere in the upper 190,000s on this game, but my brother, being my older brother, needed to beat that, and I still remember his high score of 380,000 or so. I was amazed, for the screen was whipping by, and he was playing very smoothly, carving out a hole for his little cannon in the middle of the screen, making sure that no spinners got by, or when they were unreachable, he made sure he didn't get killed by a rock trying to race over to get them. That was always my downfall, trying to get the spinners, getting killed by a rock, then getting killed by the spinner that I was trying to get over to. 2 deaths instead of 1.

Apparently, there was a contest for this back in the day, and some kid won $25,000 in early 80s money for getting 825,000 points in an hour. That's impressive.

BUY MY SHIT!

For some reason, I'm very disillusioned about the whole Christmas season now. I know there's the whole spiel about Christmas starting before Halloween, and how the season seems to be getting longer and longer. What I'm sick about is the commercialism and consumerism involved. I saw the Macy's Day Parade, and was revolted by the consumerism involved. There's nothing interesting about this pageant any more. Not sure there ever was, but this year, I was just overwhelmed with the crap that was going on. They had a Pikachu float in front of a Juicy Coture billboard, with an NBC ad in the corner for another show. Then they cut to commercial. When will our society come to the saturation point with advertisement. With the advent of DVRs, commercials have to be spectacular for people to remember them and hell, to even watch them. I know I've stopped fast forwarding if I see a commercial that looks especially interesting. Unfortunately, its also the reason for all those in-show ads at the bottom of the screen.

Anyway, back to the season. It seems that people get more inspired by black Friday(and now Cyber Monday?) than by Christmas itself, and often just go on BF to get something for themselves. Rarely do I hear "I am getting up at 4 AM to get my wife this awesome gift!" I guess its a sign of the selfishness that's occurring these days. I don't know why I needed to post this, its not like there aren't 10,000 other blog posts about the holiday seasons. I guess I was just shocked about how blatantly consumerist the Macy's parade is. That said, I want to see the look of joy on my wife's face when I get her the things she's been wanting this season.

I'll end this post on a light note. The thing I'm most fond of at the holidays: The food. I love to cook and bake, and I get a chance to try out new stuff this time of year.

Who I back in 2008

As a rule, I hate career politicians, and tend to vote for people who want to be representatives of their people, and who will hopefully represent my desires and wishes and stand the same way as I do on certain issues. Now, all of this doesn't matter, really, because politicians are swayed by lobbyists and big corporations, and that's who most politicians care most about, other than themselves. Until GWB came along, I would have said that it doesn't matter what beliefs the president has, it matters what companies back him and can push his buttons. Since Dub, I've seen where the country can go in the hands of a truly paranoid, colossally idiotic, self centered, deranged, maladjusted dingbat.

For 2008, we've got quite the crappy crop of candidates for the big two. Here's what I've got against each of the candidates:

Republican:

• Rudy Giuliani - Way too stuck on 9/11. Way too focused on NYC. I don't think he'd have a national viewpoint. Also very much a "what can get me the most votes" kind of guy, while hiding his true intentions. In short, I just don't trust him. But he's the closest the Republicans get to getting my vote, which is not very close at all.
  
• John McCain - Wants to send more troops to Iraq. Like that's going to help. I used to like him, but he's too much of a warmonger.
  
• Ron Paul - Immigration issues are what sinks him for me. He's big into the US being "independent" from the rest of the world. In a world economy, when you're as big of a consumer as the US, you HAVE to be part of the world economy, or you're sunk. Also anti-abortion big time.
• Mitt Romney - Anti-woman, Anti-gay, Anti-immigrant, and is a bishop in the LDS church. Basically, he'd make being poor illegal. And his wife can't drive worth shit.
  
• Sam Brownbeck - Anti-abortion, anti-gay, and is for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex unions. What's the matter Sam, is Jim the construction worker giving you tightpants syndrome?
  
• Mike Huckabee - Anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war.
  
• Duncan Hunter -Pro-war, anti-abortion, to the point of constitutional amemdments. Same goes for gay rights, or lack thereof.
• Tom Tancredo - Pro-war, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, big time. Actually wants to build that stupid fucking fence.
  
• Fred Thompson - Pro-war, anti-abortion, anti-gay.
  

Democrats:

• Barack Obama - Probably as close as I'll get to liking someone in the big 2. He's not for same-sex marriage, and I'm not behind his immigration 100%, and I don't like the fact that he still thinks Social Security works as it stands today, but overall, he's not too bad.
• Hillary Clinton - Ultimate snake in the grass politician. Will absolutely say whatever gets her the most votes. Could give a crap about people, or their views, and is in it for the fame and money. The type of person that when asked "What do you believe in?", says "Well, what do you believe in?" Slimeball extraordinaire. And that has nothing to do with her being a woman.
  
• Joe Biden - I like his proposal for splitting up Iraq and not forcing three groups to co-exist. Not so sure about his Social Security stances. Seems to be pandering to the babyboomers.
  
• Chris Dodd - I honestly don't know enough about him to say what I don't like about him. He seems to be saying the right things, at least.
• John Edwards - Religious nut.
• Mike Gravel - Still thinks we can do something in Iraq other than getting the F out of there. Is big on "Agressive Diplomacy". Whatever that is, it doesn't sound good to me.
  
• Dennis Kucinich - Thinks Social Security is not in crisis. Um. Right.
  
• Bill Richardson - Again, I like most of what he says, and I don't know what about him I don't like, but I know I heard something at some point.
  

So there you have it. According to Vote Match I most closely match with Hillary, but that's just counting the majors, and is still only 50%. Here's my VoteMatch score:

Your Score You scored the following on the PoliticsMatch questions:
Personal Score	88%
Economic Score	11%

Where You Fit In

Where your Personal score meets your Economic score on the grid below is your political philosophy. Based on the above score, you are a Hard-Core Liberal .

Bruins start/predictions

So I got to see the Bruins for the first time in 2007, eschewing the Red Sox game on TV for watching opening night against the Stars. The first period looked good, they looked a lot more focused and controlled than last year. It wasn't until the second period that discipline broke down, and they really reminded me of last year. Manny Fernandez looked capable as another good goalie, and might be a true #1, but I'd say he's only a step or two better than Tim Thomas. Will the Bruins be better this year? I'd say yes, and I think the announcers would agree with me. They seemed to have the "They'll be better, but not good" vibe, which I could see, and there was some talk about getting to the playoffs, but both they and I were skeptical about that prospect. The biggest change that I liked was the addition of Mike Milbury to the crew of analysts. He was a great player, and coach, and knows what it takes to get the Bs to the playoffs. He's been there, he's seen the great players, and he's not afraid to say what he thinks about this current team.

Anyway, back to the Bs team. They lost that Dallas game 4-1, and then went out to Phoenix, and beat up on the Coyotes 3-1, like they should have. Now, the Stars and the Coyotes are vastly different teams, and Dallas played like a team that had 107 points last year, and the Coyotes played like a team that had 67 points. The Bruins? They played like they had 76 points last year, unfortunately. So, even though the season is young, I think that they're going to be better than last year, but not by much. I'm saying right now its going to be about a 500 season, with 40 wins, 34 losses, and 8 OT losses. That gives them 88 points, and probably out of the playoffs again, but still, an improvement.

Can this team get better? Sure. If they spend the money, invest in a young team, and let them grow together, with the crucial addition of veteran guys that want to teach, and want to take this team to the next level. That's what happened in the late 80s, and that's what should happen again. Most importantly, they need a good D. Zdeno Chara is a good defenseman, but I don't see him being a captain, even though he has that C on his chest, and I don't see him leading this team deep into the playoffs.

Brain dredgings

I hate it when I have dreams that I can't explain, but I hate it more when my brain dredges up something that I not only can't explain, but that I've never even heard of before. Last night, I had the following dream. It doesn't make sense, but then when do dreams ever make sense?

I was in a garage of some sort, or factory or something like that. I distinctly remember a thick industrial oily smell, that iron and petroleum tang that hangs in the back of your nose and throat. The place was cold, but not unbearably so. I was a mechanic, I think, and by the costuming, it was in the late 40s, early 50s, if I had to guess. Not sure where I was, but I know that my co-worker, Frank, was British.
The dream opened as we were sitting down to lunch, which I can't remember what it was, other than I had a hot drink with it, coffee I think. We talked about the daily current events, of which I can not remember any, and ate happily. After we finished eating, Frank went over to a shelf, and got out a board game. It was called Conflict, and played a little like Stratego. We played a game, and then we went back to work, but only for a little while, when we noticed it had started to snow. Frank commented that his wife was going to be cross with him if he was late, and that we better get finished with the work we were doing, so we could both go home a little early. We were working on a truck, Frank was working on the engine, and I was busy rebuilding the transmission. I distinctly remember my hands cramping up because of the cold, and asking Frank to put more coal in the stove.
Well, a few hours went by, and a few inches of snow accumulated on the ground. By the time we were ready to go, it was getting dark, and the snow was coming down fiercely. Frank and I agreed that we were stuck there for the night, and that it would be easier to just stay than to traverse the roads that might not get plowed at all that night.
After calling our wives, we played more Conflict(apparently, we loved this game and had a great rivalry) and we had fun just hanging out for the rest of the evening. There were cots in the closet of the break room, I guess for those times when you have a long job and have to stay overnight, or bad weather like we were experiencing. In the middle of the night, I was awakened by a huge crash, and when we went to look, a tree had fallen in the storm, a maple I believe, and crashed through the corrugated iron roof and on to the truck that we had been repairing that day. Frank and I looked at it with old flashlights, and decided that there wasn't much we could do about it just then, and that we should try to get more sleep until morning.
Morning came, and Frank and I went out to assess the damage. The snow had stopped falling, and it was that blindingly bright, crisp kind of morning that can only come after a snow storm. The roof had absorbed most of the impact of the tree falling, and the truck seemed more or less okay, other than the container part of it being caved in a bit. Still, we thought we could hammer that out a lot easier than we could fix the cab, if the tree had gone through that. The roof was another matter. We didn't own the place, but we were our own bosses, so I guess that means we rented out the facility.
Frank called the owner of the building, Tom, and told him about the damage, and then proceeded to look very troubled. After getting off the phone with Tom, Frank turned to me and told me that Tom said it was our problem, that acts of god weren't covered in our rental agreement, and that we'd have to fix it ourselves. We agreed that not much could be done that day except for getting rid of the tree, and Frank decided he'd go home and get his chainsaw while I tried to pick up as many of the branches as I could. As I started trudging around the snow, the dream faded and I woke up.

Now, that dream seems pretty normal, but that's just it. It's perfectly normal, and congruous, and made sense internally to itself and to me. The oddest part about it was the clarity, and the things that I just can't explain away, like the following:

• I don't drink coffee, but I LOVED it in the dream. This is not a big deal, I know a lot of coffee drinkers, and I like the smell of it, and I had a cup of tea last night.
  
• I have never seen a transmission taken apart, but I clearly saw the transmission, and knew how to take it apart and clean it and put it back together again in the dream. I can't describe it now, other than there being lots of oily gears and pins and what not.
  
• The fact that a snow storm came upon us without us really knowing about it was odd because I normally know what the weather is going to be like, and if it was today, we'd know about a big storm like this for days in advance. However, in the 1950s, there was little weather forecasting, and certainly not the computerized models that we see today. Looking around on the web, the late 1950s is really when weather forecasting started to take off with the help of computers. Still, in a small town, they would know that snow could be coming, but might not know how powerful a storm might be.
  
• The snow plowing in the 50s wasn't that great either, especially in small towns, so my not being surprised by being stranded was notably accurate for the time period.
  
• The biggest thing that struck me this morning was the game of Conflict. It stands out as the most vivid part of the dream, and I distinctly remember the box that I have pictured above, and remembered playing the game on a board that looked almost identical to the one for that game, and I very much remember there being skunks on the dice, which is also accurate. Now the weird part: I've never seen or heard of that game before. It was a game that was produced by Parker Brothers from 1940 to 1972, and again fits the time frame of the dream. When I woke up this morning, I asked my wife if Conflict was the British name for Stratego, because Frank was British and we were playing Conflict. Granted, the game itself doesn't play much like Stratego, but maybe that's the analogy that my brain came up with to explain it.

What does this all mean? Probably nothing. But it was just another in a long line of dreams/deja vu/whatever that seem to haunt me for days afterward.

Halo 3 mis-use

And I'm not talking about cheating, griefing, or team killing, or whatever. I'm talking about the mongoloids out there who waste a great game like Halo 3 and only play slayer, or if they're feeling adventurous and social, team slayer. Okay, you mouth breathing jock monkeys, its not 1994. There are other modes in the multiplayer than "kill everything that moves". Its not even clever "kill everything that moves", like rockets only, or only vehicles and pistols, or only sticky grenades. Its "I memorized this map, know where everyone spawns, and where all the weapons are. I will slaughter you to make myself feel better, with no other point kill everything that moves". Assbaskets. With the Forge, an unlimited number of variants can exist on the framework of several very solid modes, such as the standard Capture the Flag, Oddball, a great game of Tag, where the goal is to be "it" for the longest time possible, infection, where you try to spread a plague, Juggernaut and VIP, which are modes based on trying to kill one person, King of the Hill and Territories, where you control an area by having the most people in it, and even good old Assault, which is capture the flag, but one team is on offense, and the other is defense.

Oh, and don't bitch about a mode being "too confusing". How confusing is it to capture a damn area, and keep others from doing the same? Expand your friggin horizons. And please, please please, how about a little strategy when you do lower yourself to gaming on a team with a specific goal? People who answer "What's the plan?" with "Uh, capture the flag, since we're playing capture the flag." should be slapped.

Bruins 2007-2008 first post

I hate to admit it, but I'm a little bit excited by the Bruins this year. They've got the magic bear back on their jerseys, I think they got rid of the mustard bear head jerseys, they've got a goalie that doesn't look like the Dutch Paint Boy, and I think Phil Kessel and Patrice Bergeron will light things up this year, though I think they should move one of them to a wing, and let them play on the same line to start some chemistry. I know, they're going to suck, and apparently there are VERY few hockey fans in central Mass, and the Celtics and Patriots will relegate them to nearly no coverage, but I'm still a fan. Have you seen the new jerseys for the various teams? I'm liking that the Crapitals changed back to their old unis, and I like the Minnesota home jersey with the ring, but I'm not liking the Thrashers blue uniform, that's gonna give me a headache.

One more note about hockey: "Joe Thornton posted 114 points for the Sharks last season." That hurts. Especially when you calculate that the 3 nickles the Bruins got for their quarter were Marco Sturm, with 44 points and a -24 +/-, Brad Stuart 17 pts, -22 and Wayne Primeau, 15 pts, -15 +/-. That adds up to 76 points, and an average +/- of -21.(Thornton had a +24) Even if you added the guys the B's traded Sturm and Stuart for, Andrew Ference(15 pts) and Chuck Kobasew(19 pts) they STILL only add up to 110 points of production. What gets me is that the GM is claiming to pick up the two guys from Calgary to help out with "production and stability from young guys". Ference is older than Thornton, and like I said, neither of the new guys have produced much. So in the long run, I think that the B's are looking at having traded a quarter for 3 nickels, and then traded 2 of those nickels for 3 pennies each, leaving the "storied franchise" with 11 cents and a bucket of tears.

Wow, I just took a survey over at ESPN that let you rate things about the team like "Has loyalty to the players", "Has inexpensive parking", and "Franchise pays well to keep players". I gave the Bruins 1 out of 10 for most of the questions, especially the "Consistently wins more games than they lose" http://vp-nri.com/take?i=111318&h=0jIb3FiGAM9Mv-7q6JZ-VA

Final Bruins Blog

I don't know if its a good thing or a bad thing that I was pretty close about the Bruins' final point tally. They finished up 35-41-6, for a total of 76 points. Very close to my final asessment in March of 36-40-6, and not too far from my 32-38-12, 78 point attempt earlier in the season. What will they do in the off season? Not too much, I'm afraid. This team is a long way from any kind of playoff run. They're not missing a sniper or a great defenseman or even a goalie. They're missing all of those. They've got Murray, who got 28 goals last year, and Marc Savard, who's got the best chance at being a true talent in the league, he had 96 points last year on a very strong line, and thats great too. Problem is, Murray is 35, and Savard is 30. Zdeno Charra had an extremely disappointing year, if you ask me, with a whopping -21 +/-, and though he had good points on defense, and was certainly an upgrade to Hal Gil, he's still not a superstar, if you ask me. Not alone. But there are very few defensemen who truly are. The Bruins need to break down, toss out all the old guys for draft picks better than their 8th this year, and some true young talent, and aim for a cohesive unit, and keep that cohesive unit by actually paying those players to stay together. Bergeron and Kessel are a huge help, and they'd be a great nucleus for a team to build around. Here's what I suggest:
1) Trade for a really good goalie prospect, or better yet, a true #1 goalie. This will give the opportunity for Hannu to look, learn, and hopefully settle down. Because Hannu is minor league talent right now, and no better. 3-9 with a 4.23 GAA is horrible, even for a second stringer. But he's young, and even though he looks like the Dutch Boy paint kid, he's got some talent in that body, even if he's psycho, even for a goalie. But you can't expect him to come in, and become a 1st stringer. And Tim-may isn't a 1st stringer either.
2) Trade Murray and Savard for good young defensive talent. They're getting old/are old, and Savard had a career year this year. Trade him before he comes back to earth.
3) Open up the pocketbook. I don't need to reiterate why this is so important.
4) Get some local talent. Get guys that were big names in BU/BC/UNH, and you'll see more interest from the fans. Pay them to stay, and voila, you've got a good nucleus for a good team.
5) Get a goon. Preferably a smallish goon. This city likes its small scrappy players. If the guy can score, even better, but getting someone who can fight that will be outsized will bring back some of that Jay Miller feel to the building.
6) Know that there will be some rebuilding years. Make that clear to the players and the fans, but bring in young talent that shows prospect, and you'll see the tickets sell and the fans be excited, a la the Celtics the last 2 years. Bergeron and Kessel are still young, and if you start honestly rebuilding now, they'll be invaluable in 3-5 years.

Well, this might be the last Bruins post until October or so, when I can once again curse the Icecapades.

I don't exist.

I found this way too funny.

HowManyOfMe.com

There are: 0 people with my name in the U.S.A. How many have your name?

Brainwashing

I was browsing the interweb today, and I was shown the grand folly of the web site http://www.conservapedia.com by a friend(thanks Joe!). This is a wikipedia written by homeschoolers and their ilk, and its highly disturbing. Its disturbing to me because it does precisely what a reference guide should NOT do, it puts forth an agenda, and is, and I quote:

...an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Well, isn't that just ducky. Instead of being a neutral document, lets put out a Christian reference to make sure that the brainwashed masses remain so. Some gems from the conservapedia include claims of live dinosaurs, which ironically is criticized for not being creationist enough for some, and this doozy:

The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,^[1] which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence.

Wow. Just, wow. The existence of unicorns is neither here nor there, but the idea of the bible being complete fact is just ludicrous to me. You know how someone mentions astronomical speeds or distances, and it just blows your mind? For example, that the brightest star in the sky is over 50,000,000,000,000 miles away but you can still see it? Your mind just shuts off, and just can't comprehend that kind of number. I feel that way about the infallibility of the bible, except in reverse. I can't comprehend how anyone can possibly believe that, and still have the right number of chromosomes.

Its not just the animal world that's getting abused like a buffet at a Ramadan sunset. The physical world is getting the left hook of God, too. The conservapediacs suggest that because the moon is moving away from the earth,(this is a fact, they can measure it with a laser) that is proof that gravity does not exist. What. The. Fuck. The moon weighs 7x10^32 kilos, if gravity didn't exist, it would certainly move away from the earth at a much higher rate than 3 cm a year. In fact, the difference seen by the apollo lunar laser ranging experiment(a very cool experiment name, by the way) puts the upper limit of change in Newton's gravitational constant at 1 in 100,000,000,000. Saying that the distance to the moon changing proves that gravity does not exist is like saying water is explosive because it contains hydrogen and oxygen. No, its not that simple, its even more idiotic. Its like saying someone I only know over the internet doesn't exist because I've never met them. No, thats not it either. See what I mean about not being able to fathom the horrible logic used?

For shits and giggles, I checked out their entry on Sir Isaac Newton, who I know was a VERY devout Christian, and studied nature and his surroundings to learn more about God. They put forth his bio pretty well, but they have to add this little tidbit to it as well:

The majority opinion holds that Newton was a unitarian (one God) and an Arian (Jesus was divine but did not exist eternally and was created by God at some point before coming to Earth)Both are commonly regarded by conservative Christians as the foulest of heresies, and Newton's adoption of them illustrates the folly of adopting personal religious beliefs rather than submitting to lawful authority.

Sigh. What does this possibly add? What does this whole farce of a reference document add? Nothing, really. All it does is provide a way for homeschoolers and conservative christians to further brainwash their kids. "Oh no, kids, don't go use the Wikipedia, use the Conservapedia!" Compare the Conservapedia entry on Sir Isaac Newton, and the Wikipedia entry on the same man. One is 4 paragraphs long, the other is more along the lines of 40. Its simply more informative. I'm not against homeschooling, per se, I think that given the right parents and right kids, it can be a great thing. However, when its used to brainwash the kids into the same backward, close-minded thinking that their parents suffer from, its a tragedy. And it's a disservice to the kids, because they're going to grow up, get a job, and tell Jim from accounting that he's going to hell because he believes that gravity exists. What good does that do anyone? I guess it continues the word of God, or at least their version, which, if you listen to them, is the correct version.

Should I leave a comment telling them that Isaac was most likely gay? Nah, it'd make their heads explode.

Bruins Blog 3

I moved my sumo stuff to another blog for easier reading, and for my own sanity. So now it looks like I haven't posted in 2 months.

What to say about the Bruins? They put together a good streak after my last B's blog, and managed to make it to the #7 spot or so, and were a good 5-6 games over .500. I was hoping it could last, but the wheels have fallen off of the bus now. They've dropped something like 8 of their last 10, and 6 in a row at one point. They're being forgotten by the fans, by the media, by ESPN, and by nearly everyone. No one picked them to do anything in the beginning of the season, but for a major team in a major market, you don't hear boo about them, other than the occasional score, even in Boston. They've been relegated to the "show a score but no highlights" team on ESPN, and the fans are starting to not show up for games. With a record of 24-25-4, and 52 points, they're 10 points out of the playoffs, and only above Florida(51) and the lowly Phlyers(34) in their conference, 25th overall. My prediction of 32-38-12 and 76 points doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility, certainly.

Personnel-wise, there's some talk about moving some of the bigger-name players to get some youngsters and possibly help the team rebuild for next and future years. Brad Stuart, Marco Sturm, and even Glen Murray(I almost said Wesley) are up on the blocks, and have rumors flying about them. I'd normally be all for trades, but with this team, I don't even know if it matters. They need a new goaltender with some modicum of talent to back up Thomas, who's just too old to be going 44 out of 53 games, and Hannu's just not ready for prime time, 3-7 in 15 games, so its more like 3-12, with a 4.5 GAA. Ug-Leee. The other problem I have with trading for youngsters is that the team won't pay for good players over a long period of time. Its happened so many times I can't count. I guarantee that you'll see some Stuart, Sturm, and/or Murray get traded for some has-been who comes to Boston and has a good season or two, and makes a run for the money.


I'll be a Bruins fan until I die, but their current crap has to stop, and soon. (I've been saying that for the last 15 years)

Latest prediction: 36-40-6, for 78 points, slightly better than last prediction. Still out of the points, but 24th overall, 12th in their division.