Merrick

@jammer2 Haha…I totally didn’t think that you did! I agree that he wouldn’t be a good fit for the Flyers, and that someone will end up overpaying for him. It’ll be interesting to see how he produces with whatever team he ends up with—and if he can maintain his scoring touch without the benefit of being Tavares’ linemate…

Meltzer addressed the possibility of adding Parenteau in his blog today: "Most folks seem to be focused on free agents such as P.A. Parenteau or Ray Whitney (himself 40 years old) if Jagr does not come back and the club is unable to trade for Ryan. I understand the sentiment -- there is a concern over the Flyers losing too much offense from the top two wings between Jagr and JVR departing. I view it a little differently. First of all, I'm not particularly enamored of Parenteau. The late-blooming winger has done a pretty good job on the Islanders' top line the last couple of years and has had some success against the Flyers (which sometimes contributes to a particular player being brought in) despite New York's poor record against Philly. Parenteau is a good passer with good offensive instincts. But he is a poor skater, subpar defensively and not much of a finisher. At age 29, he is not suddenly going to morph into a more complete player. Frankly, I think he's going to get overpaid by his next team and I would not be eager if I were Paul Holmgren to lock myself into a multi-year deal. Jagr might cost more for next season, but it will be only a one-year arrangement. As for Whitney or a discount option such as bringing Mike Knuble back to Philly at a reduced cost after a miserable season for the Capitals, they team also might as well just hammer out something with Jagr." http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-Meltzer/Meltzers-Musings-Jagr-Alternatives-Carle--LTIR-Larsson/45/45263

I'd love to see the Flyers sign him and them package him in a deal for Bobby Ryan. That'd be rich.

No Decision on Neal Right winger James Neal had hearings with Brendan Shanahan, who handles supplemental discipline for the NHL, for two separate incidents in Game 3 of the Penguins' first-round playoff series with Philadelphia. He said after practice, though, that he has not heard what punishment, if any, he will receive and that he does not expect any word until later this afternoon. http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/penguins-plus/115935-no-decision-on-neal

I totally hear ya on this, but I still feel like I'm being imposed upon in some way. Should I be worried that someone's going to start an anti-alcohol campaign and force me to look at cirrhosis of the liver pics? I also don't think that the ads are appropriate for the hockey-viewing audience. There are probably a lot of real young kids out there—that is, too young to even understand the anti-smoking message—who have been terrified by those commericals. If I would've seen that stuff when I was five or six years old, I would've had nightmares for weeks. You're absoultely right about the ASPCA commercials—they're the worst!

Springfield High School (Delaware County), 1993

Does anybody else have a problem with these ridiculously over-the-top ads? Frankly, I resent the fact that I'm forced to sit through them during games that air on the NBC networks. First of all, they're too graphic. Definitely not the kind of stuff that you want to see (and hear) when you're sitting in front of the TV with a beer and a plate of nachos. Second, I'm not even a smoker. This is probably what annoys me the most—I'm being preached to about a problem that I don't even have. I guess I could simply change the channel when these ads come on. At the same time, I shouldn't need to be ready to go all Quick Draw McGraw with my remote every time a game cuts to commercial. I understand that smoking/cancer is bad, and that these ads are designed to shock people into seeing that. But watching hockey is an escape for me, and I just don't think I need to look at this sort of nonsense when I'm trying to unwind and enjoy myself.

@SpikeDDS I was just listening to some NHL talk on XM, and a really interesting point was made that suggested James Wisniewski should be the person who is most upset over the paltry fine that Weber received for his actions. It made a lot of sense. Even though Wisniewski was suspended for an elbow, both his and Weber’s acts showed a flagrant disregard for their opponent’s well-being. The difference is that Wisniewski served eight regular season games and forfeited $536,000 in salary. By the time that poor SOB finished serving his suspension, his team was already a long shot to make the playoffs. Meanwhile, Weber commits a crime that is just as offensive (if not more so), and isn’t even forced to sit one (palyoff) game for it. I’m sure he was feeling pressure from the league to go easy on Weber, but Shanahan still blew it on this one.

@B21 Haha…Are you trying to tell me that 96.1’s Morning Freak Show doesn’t accurately reflect the feelings of all Pittsburghians?!? I’m shocked! And I hope you’re not suggesting that The Biebs’ opinion on these matters wouldn’t carry any weight—The dude’s a confirmed rink rat...

@B21 I hear what you’re saying regarding Laviolette, Milbury, Roenick, et al. Regardless of their actions, there are many that perceive Campbell’s answer to the question as an apology, whether their Flyers fans, Penguins fans, or simply hockey fans in general. I’ve seen it used in numerous outlets, and, as I mentioned earlier, a Pittsburgh radio station used the term in “NHL Apologizes for Missing Call Against Pens in Game 1 Vs. Flyers” (http://www.961kiss.com/pages/freakshow.html?article=10037207). It seems to me that use of the term “apologize” isn’t limited to those caught up in the wave of anti-Penguins sentiment. Again, I don’t think Meltzer was killing Campbell for apologizing (even though he never apologized). He just acknowledged that Campbell addressed the play, said he was fine with it, and went on to note that missed calls eventually even out. If anything, he came across as a bit bitter about never receiving an explanation about what happened with the Islanders back in the day.

@B21 I agree that the term “official apology” was false. What’s interesting, though, is how many people—whether they’re Flyers fans or not—have interpreted it as an apology. Meltzer’s certainly not the only one using the term. Regardless of the “official apology” thing, I just think he’s saying that the league isn’t always consistent when explaining its mistakes. If you’re going to admit to one or two of them, you should admit to all of them. I think a weekly “blown calls” report on NHL.com would do the trick…

@B21 I think you’re getting too caught up in the “official apology” wording. While I admit that there was nothing official about it, Campbell came across as apologetic in the interview. It’s not like Meltzer is the only person who sees it that way—if you google “Campbell” and “apologize,” you get hits like “Colin Campbell Apologizes” “And NHL Senior Executive Vice President of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell is apologizing for it. ‘There's no other way to explain it but a missed call,’ Campbell told the Canadian Press. ‘We're as upset as Pittsburgh almost. It's a mistake.’ “NHL Apologizes for Missing Call Against Pens in Game 1 Vs. Flyers” (from 96.1 KISS—a Pittsburgh station) Regardless of whether the apology was “official” (and if it was even an apology), Meltzer said he had no problem with it. I got the impression that he was more upset about the lack of an explanation from the league for what happened between the Flyers and the Islanders many moons ago. He didn’t seem too up-in-arms to me. As a matter of fact, I thought he was simply stating that bad calls—no matter which way they go—have a way of eventually evening out.

@Southwestflyer Meltzer had a pretty good blurb regarding this at the bottom of his blog this morning. I think it's spot-on: The NHL's Colin Campbell officially apologized to the Penguins for the obvious blown offside call that led to Briere's first goal of the game. No. I have problems with that. I have no problem with that. However, the Flyers are still awaiting their apology (or at least plausible explanation) for the first-period blown icing call. However, the Flyers are still awaiting their apology (or at least plausible explanation) for the blown first-period icing call. Oh and while the NHL is in apologetic mood, Philadelphia's wait for the League apology is now 22 years and Counting for the non-calls on Denis Potvin's blatantly high-sticked goal and even more blatant offside committed on Brent Sutter's goal in Game 6 of the 1980 Stanley Cup final. Oh and while the NHL is an apologetic mood, Philadelphia's wait for a league apology is now 22 years and counting for the non-calls on Denis Potvin's blatantly high-sticked goal and even more blatant offside committed on Brent Sutter's goal in Game 6 of the 1980 Stanley Cup Final. The Truth of the matter is that the non-calls in Game 1 ultimately evened out. The truth of the matter is that the non-calls in Game 1 ultimately evened out. Officials are human, too, and there are inevitably numerous other points within the game that Contribute to a Win or a loss. Officials are human, too, and there are inevitably numerous other points within the game that contribute to a win or a loss. http://www.hockeybuz...nguins/45/43793

@Podein25 I didn't see Simmonds' knee on Fleury, but I did notice Crosby's flagrant embellishment on that Jagr "interference" penalty. My feeling was that both teams got away with some pretty questionable plays last night. I'm just glad the Flyers came out on top!

@canoli The poster’s comment was so ridiculously over the top—something like, “*$@#$%! that baby! I’d throw it on the ice!” What cracked me up was the fact that it inspired an avalanche of condescending responses (e.g., “Until you’re a parent, you can never understand how horrible it would be to have your child thrown on the ice”). It still makes me laugh when I think about it.