Wednesday, October 13, 2004
#
Well today was supposed to be the first games of the season for many NHL teams. For many people, the reality of NHL lockout has finally set in. No games for a long, long time. When i first read that the NHL owners were lobbying for a salary cap, I was intrigued and extremely happy. Finally! Small market teams will finally be on par with the rich teams. Competitive balance at last! However, the more i read about it and the more i dug, the less optimistic i was about a salary cap and i became quite skeptical of how one would work. Then i heard that the Edmonton Oilers, a big supporter of the salary cap and also a team who has lost more than its fair share of stars because of high salaries, are pushing for a $30 million salary cap. Now to the casual fan this may seem like a big sum of money, and in reality it is. However, this lowers the average NHL player's salary by quite a bit. It also means that $10 million a year contracts will not likely be given out for no player is worth a third of his teams payroll. There is no way players will agree to this!
Upon closer inspection, I realized, more like remembered, that the Oilers, although may be a “well-run team”, were one of the most poorly ran, sad excuses of a professional sports team i have seen. this may sound a bit harsh but when your goal every year is to make the playoffs and expect to play only one round (making the playoffs is a huge part of the Oiler's revenue...they literally depend on this)...... makes me rethink why there should be some type of competitive balance. Add to the fact that this goal not only limits your team's motivation to succeed, but is also spitting in the faces of the fans, telling us that “we give up, we have to make smaller goals” while taking on average $60 for a nosebleed seat next to the fat guy without the shirt yelling “SMYTTY!!!” The Oilers paint a sad contrast to my favourite baseball team: The Oakland A's. the a's have the 2nd lowest payroll in the MLB yet consistently kick the asses of higher priced teams every year. Why? Because instead of bitching and moaning about how they're on uneven playing ground, they regularly compete with teams such as the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. And how do they do that? well, they had a lot of luck/scouting in the amateurs player draft, getting future superstar pitchers like Barry Zito and Mark Mulder. What amazes me the most about the A's was that they're willing to think out of the box, work with their budget and expect to win some championships while they're at it. The thing i really love about the A's approach is that they took an undervalued statistic/ability, on base percentage, and decided to sign free agents and draft batters accordingly, often overlooking things like “height”, “speed” and defense to do so. Wow. If you have no money, you got to think out of the box, it's that simple.
Now lets compare the Oilers to the A's. The Oilers, like the A's, are forced to build through the draft. They can't seem to afford any free agents or any of their own good players. One thing i will give the Oilers credit for is that they take advantage of other team's impulses to win right now, often getting blue chip young players who need more playing time, like Eric Brewer, to succeed. Would you trade hamrlik for Brewer now? and they tend to get really good value from their trades. However, the fact that they seem to ignore all this come draft time completely blows me away. it's no secret that the Oilers have overpriced two things during the draft: speed and size. In 1995, i remember the Oilers had Shane Doan all to themselves but decided to opt for the speedier Steve Kelly. Doan is currently a rising star in the NHL. Steve kelly is flipping burgers at mcdonalds and trying to stay on the 4th line in some barren, far off farm team. Kelly had speed but lacked everything else. It's like trying to drive a Type R in the winter: no A/C, no heat but man can it rip! Case number two: the 2004 entry draft. The Oilers needed a Goalie and everyone thought that Marek Schwarz was the second coming of Dominik Hasek. Good skills, good goalie. All there for the oilers at number 14. So who do the oilers take? some 6'4” goalie, Devan Dubnuk, who they took on the merit that he's huge and will benefit from the rule changes in the league. Pardon me, but if you need some rule changes to justify your position as an NHL goalie does that really merit taking this jobber that high? I mean i could find a guy that runs about 6'6” off the street, stick him in net and bam, he'll be taken by the oilers in the first round! This is insane. These are only two drafts but believe me, they're the tip of the iceberg.
When you're an NHL team with a limited budget, you have to simply be smarter than the average bear. It's that simple. Invest your limited resources on better scouting, or better yet, better management. If you have $1 million to spend on skill or size or speed, skill is the thing that seems to win hockey games these days. Look at the freaking tampa bay lightning. You're not gonna kick the shit out of teams by kicking the shit outta them....
The Oilers are out by the first round of the playoffs or struggling to make the playoffs simply because they've got a bunch of imbecles at the front office. Plain and simple.
Hey guys. Wow two responses already. I feel at home already...anyways here's my post.
Anyways, i've had a few questions lately about my faith (like i said, the swings of agnosticism but i keep grounded). Why is there so much suffering? It makes sense when one asks “if there's a God, why 9/11? If there's a God why did so and so die? or such thing happen?”. The popular analogy is that there if God is all knowing, all powerful and all loving, then he should be able to correct suffering right? I guess that makes sense. But is the issue really that simple? Philosopher Peter Kreft (as well as many scientists) would agree that “there is no God” is a “intellectual ignorant” statement. We can't really prove nor can we disprove. But that doesn't really get rid of this suffering issue. I don't really think i have found any hard, definate answers but i have started looking. My science and religion class introduced me to the topic of “theodicy”- an argument to justify the existence of evil and suffering in a world created by God. i didn't really understand his reasoning but yeah... the search started there! I'm also reading a book called “The Case for Faith”, which attempts to give readers some answers regarding some tough objections to religion. But yeah, on the case for suffering, one thing i think was a strong argument would be that our understanding of evil, and suffering being an expression of evil, proves the existence of some ultimate moral good (ie. God). How so? Well, as former atheist CS Lewis, who also wrote the lion the witch and the wardrobe, when use the term evil, a term that i believe is laced with morals suggesting something wrong, there must be some standard of good we measure all things by. Think about that for a sec. It took me actually a few years to sorta realize that (i first read CS Lewis' “mere Christianity“ when i was in First year). I mean we all know what is “moral” and “immoral”. Sure one could argue “these things came about to make sure our societies ran” okay, i can dig that. But evil, the term we will inherently lace with a value judgement, means that something good exists. Peter Kreft says that if he gives one student an 80% and one a 90%, both students understand that the standard they are measured against is 100%. If i look at an old car and say that it is old, i must have some understanding as to what a new car looks like. I guess this is one argument we could use for a God admist suffering. The other thing kreft says that really caught my attention: people who complain about suffering are often the stuffy academics, kid living in suburban Canada, etc. We never really talk to those who suffer. Kreft mentions that people who suffer often grow closer to God, and have stronger faith. I agree with this. After reading stories of martyrs, people who are persecuted etc, i think i can agree with that. From personal experience, my friend who lives in Assumption (a native reserve up north) told me about seeing his friends getting killed, can't get out of life in the gangs, drug dealings and coming from a broken home, losing his mom when he was really young and having a non-existent dad. Yet when i talk to him, never once was he so certain that all this suffering showed that there was no God. On one hand i definately can agree with that. My stuffy agnostic academic side prefers to say “yeah we have this luxury of not having to deal with this but it also allows us to think with a clear mind, free of delusions of a creator”. But yeah....something i've been thinking about. Like i said earlier, i don't have a clear answer on this stuff yet....and i fear that my faith may be nothing but molecules and hormones in my brain but it doesn't hurt thinking about this stuff. For any of those interested, “the case for faith“ is available from Campus Crusade for free. Just drop by their office in SUB.
The second thing that sorta struck me was a quote from darwin's biography in his section entitled “religious beliefs“. You'd expect someone like Darwin to use suffering as something to support his so called “atheistic“ theory of evolution. actually, Darwin did believe that there was a creator behind it all. In the origin of species he refers to a creator seven times. Although biologist Richard Dawkins would like us to believe Darwin was an atheist, Darwin states in his letters that he refuses to believe the universe was formed by blind chance” (the life and letters of Charles Darwin). Mike Behe, as many christians will know, has this theory of intelligent design etc etc, but he ripped off Darwin in my opinion. Darwin however, was NOT a christian as popular myth would want us to believe. Darwin identified suffering as a a strong argument against the existance of an intelligent first cause, his rationale is essentially that the good outweigh the bad on this earth. This is coming from a guy who lost his kid and had his mother die when he was really young. I found that interesting. by the way, if you university guys have a chance out there, that Christian theology 350, science and religion. Dr. Dennis Lamoureux is the guy that teaches it...i think his web site is www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure.
My psych classes have some thing to say about this: humans are the only ones that can comprehend our own mortality, thus religion must be formed to hellp us deal with this fear. It makes sense. But at the same time, the image of hell that we are given in the Bible seems pretty scary itself. could atheism be our cloak for this reality of a God? We could swing either way on this issue and in all honesty both possibilities are likely. Saying there is no God, science proves it is as much a religious statement as saying there is one.
I'm not really trying to “convert” anyone and i can honestly say that this post started out as me trying to reflect on the issue of suffering. Regardless of your faith you should ask the tough questions. I'll be the first to say that I have a ton of doubts some time and people who know me know that i will struggle trying to find answers. So if you're an atheist, agnostic, buddhist, christian, muslim, whatever, question your beliefs. Don't close your mind. I believe that people will find what they believe is the ultimate reality, be it God, Jesus, Allah or money. As Jesus Christ once said: “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money”. comments? rage? disgust? whatever?
Hello gang. welcome to blogosphere's newest addition....well...to my knowledge anyways, “the world according to me”. Don't let appearances fool you: this blog has absolutely nothing to do with soccer and everything to do with nothing. It's like one huge retarded, Chinese episode of Seinfeld...without Kramer....or Elaine....or Jerry...maybe George...so it's not a huge episode of Seinfeld but really this blog is a blog containing light-hearted blog material. A little about me: I'm a 20 year old Christian guy, who sometimes thinks very agnostically, attending the U of A. I don't have many interests. I primarily read, work-out, play music and hang out with my girlfriend. It's a sad existence but nonetheless, an existence. I'm an avid sports fan and my favourite teams are as follows: the Edmonton “lets make the playoffs and lose” oilers, the Oakland “lets not spend any money and win” A's, the Baltimore “lets go on probation” Ravens and the greatest football team in the world MANCHESTER UNITED! As you can see there are major faults with all the teams i follow hardcore and my fair weather team is the only perfect one. My favourite book of all time? Moneyball! and my favourite song changes each day...well...it seems like it....
alright before we formally start off, please keep in mind that the opinions expressed on this page are Opinions. I'm probably not going to agree with you. I may or may not make you angry and if you cry i'm likely not to care very much. Sorry. But yeah, keep that in mind...with that being said, lets get to the first post!!!! or not.