Comments (0)

By Mark D, May 25, 2012 5:27 am

So I was playing Baseball Mogul 2012, I took over the Mets. It actually went worse then my time as GM of the Islanders with EHM. In my 2nd season I managed to bankrupt the team losing 30 million dollars. I also lost about half the roster because you can’t sign someone when your in the red. So basically for another 3 seasons I was the worst team in the league. Until a bunch of my draftees made the big team, then I was merely a .500 team. Almost. The Mogul rating system currently has me at a 30.0 rating, 10 points behind the Ty Cobb led Tigers.

In my first season I went 87-75, good enough for 3rd in the NL East. Since then? 55-107, 56-106, 74-88 and 79-83. That puts me at an all time 351-459, -100 losses in only 5 seasons. I am as epic a general manager when it comes to baseball as it does hockey apparently. At least the last time I played Baseball Mogul and started out awful, I eventually won the World Series back to back to back to back. Then 20 years of being an also run again.

I really should stop making fun of Milbury, because he appears to be better at this then I am. Not going to happen, but I’ll at least admit as much. I won’t put a 40 year old Beezer in net and claim the team is going to make the playoffs. With Torgo’s sim league coming up, I’ll probably win that and everyone will claim I’ve been sandbagging with these posts. I swear I’m not, it just seems like I’m having awful luck with them lately.

Part of the problem is that Baseball Mogul is made more for you to manage the game, at bat to at bat. But that way bores the hell out of me. I’d rather sit down and sim a whole season in one go. Otherwise I’d maybe get through 3-5 games at most in managerial mode. I mean as long as I’m going to manage the at bat, I might as well play a game in which I’m the player and making the decision to swing or not, or having to catch the ball and make a play.

For those who might be interested, here are the career batting and career pitching stats of my current team. Oh yea, David Wright? He’s in the minors while making 10 million and has a No Trade Clause… Life sucks. For those of you who like stats, maybe you can tell me what I appear to be doing wrong.

Comments (0)

By Mark D, May 21, 2011 9:49 pm

I consider myself a connoisseur of bad NHL trades. Especially with the time I have spent breaking down Milbury trades. Now in my opinion, nothing was worse then the Olli Jokinen/Roberto Luongo for Mark Parrish/Oleg Kvasha. Jokinen and Luongo both became All-Stars, while Parrish and Kvasha did almost nothing. But the standing notion is that the worst NHL trade in history is the Lindros trade to the Flyers for Forsberg  and a handful of prospects/picks. The common stance is that while the Avs became an elite team and won Multiple Cups, the Flyers only made the Stanley Cup Finals once and were swept by the Red Wings.

I think this is horribly slanting things against the Flyers. Lindros made them an elite team and had some great seasons. Unfortunately the failing of the Flyers was the always changing situation in Net. While the Sabres had Dominik Hasek, the Rangers had Richter, The Pens had Barasso, the Caps had Kolzig, the Panthers had Beezer, the Devils had Brodeur, the Leafs had Potvin and Joseph, and so on. While the east seemed to be overflowing with elite goalies, the Flyers were alone in not having a really great goalie. Now while Hextall was good, his time had passed. At the same time Snow, Boucher and the other Flyers goalies were good but not that good. It’s not surprising that in a period of time in which the league seemed to rely on clutch and grab and top goaltending, that the Flyers struggled.

But the Flyers still managed to make a good run of things. Meanwhile the Avs managed to fleece Patrick Roy, widely considered the best goalie in the league, who became the cornerstone of their runs to the Cup. One can only imagine what might have happened if Roy was playing for the Flyers instead of Snow for the season they made it to the Finals.

How do the two teams line up? It’s time for a breakdown of their standings from 92-93 to 99-00

92-93
Nordiques 47-27-10 104 .619 Lost in Round 1
Flyers 36-37-11 83 .494 out of playoffs

93-94
Nordiques 34-42-8 76 .452 Out of Playoffs
Flyers 35-39-10 80 .476 Out Of Playoffs

95
Nordiques 30-13-5 65 .677 Lost in Round 1
Flyers 28-16-4 60 .625 Lost in Round 3

95-96
Nordiques 47-25-10 104 .634 Won Cup
Flyers 45-24-13 107 .628 Lost in Round 2

96-97
Avalanche 49-24-9 107 .652 Lost in Round 3
Flyers 45-24-13 103 .628 Lost in Finals

97-98
Avalanche 39-26-17 95 .579 Lost in Round 1
Flyers 42-29-11 95 .579 Lost in Round 1

98-99
Avalanche 44-28-10 98 .598 Lost in Round 3
Flyers 37-26-19 94 .567 Lost in Round 1

99-00
Avalanche 42-28-11-1 96 .585 Lost in Round 3
Flyers 45-22-12-3 105 .640 Lost in Round 3

For much of Lindros’ time with the Flyers they were pretty much on an even footing with the Avs. But the goaltending struggles is obviously the difference here. For an Example, here’s Patrick Roy’s save percentages in the playoffs for the Avs: .921 .932 .906 .920 .928

In Comparison here’s Hextall’s playoff save percentages:
.904 .915 .892
Boucher’s:
.917
Snow’s
.892
Beezer:
.938

Look, if you put Roy on the Flyers, they are probably just as dominate as the Avs were. The thought that the Lindros to the Flyers trade is “One of the worst” in NHL History is overblown. Both teams joined the elite of their conference not too long after the trade. The rise of the Nordiques was long in coming as they were bad for years before. It ignores all their drafts (including the addition of Joe Sakic) and movements of their own to get better.  The Lindros deal in the end was basically Forseberg for Lindros. There were a lot of spare pieces, and the draft picks became Fiset and Baumgartner.

For a trade to be truly bad, it should dam near destroy one team and make another a powerhouse. Head to Head the Flyers matched the Avs/Nords almost every season. The difference was Roy in net. Had the Flyers ever had an answer to the struggles in net they probably would have won at least 1 Cup. There’s nothing in this trade that says if the Flyers don’t trade for Lindros they win the Cup instead. If anything they might have finished even worse then they did.

Comments (0)

By Mark D, June 7, 2010 4:35 pm

So I’ve been a fan of the Islanders since the 93 season (When I was all of 12 years old).  To this point it’s still the highlight of my following the Islanders.  When I moved in with my current roomie, it was during the Flyers run behind Biron to the Conference Finals. It was amazing, as the Flyers basically turned around one of the worst teams in the league the season before to one of the final four. It’s amazing that teams like the Devils and the Red Wings have been good for so long. The Blackhawks took one shot at rebuilding (once their penny pinching owner died) and managed to make a cup contender. Yet since 93 there have been quite a few rebuilding efforts by the Islanders.

Rebuilding #1

GM: Don Maloney
Began: When Maloney traded for Kirk Muller, trading popular center Pierre Turregon. He proclaimed that the league was heading towards a period of Defense first, and that defensive forward Muller was an improvement over recently hurt Pierre.
Ended: When Maloney was fired because Muller refused to play for the Islanders.
Pros: We did get Eric Fichaud
Cons: Everything else about Maloney. Also this opened the door for mental midget Mike Milbury

Rebuilding #2

GM: Mike Milbury
Began: When Milbury was promoted to replace Maloney. He promised a five year plan which would have us in Cup Contention by 00/01.
Ended: When Milbury ran out of patience and traded Bertuzzi and McCabe for Trevor Linden to “Win Now”. He also fired Rick Bowness and put himself behind the bench. The team proceeded to collapse and miss the playoffs.
Pros: Nothing wrong term. Anyone from this rebuilding/period was traded or dumped.
Cons: The win now mentality also included the trade of Berard for Potvin and other short term deals.

Rebuilding #3

GM: Mike Milbury
Began: The trading of Linden for a 1st round pick in 99, the first of 3 such picks added to the Islanders pick that year.
Ended: Take your pick, either the deal of Conolly and Pyatt for Micheal Peca or Chara and a first rounder for Yashin.
Pros: We did get 4 first rounders in 99, considered one of the all time weakest drafts.
Cons: Once again Milbury lost patience and dealt a bunch of youth for Vets who were just good enough to win a handful of playoff games. Worst of all the Isles are still paying for Yashin.

Rebuilding #4

GM: Garth Snow
Began: When Nolan was replaced with Scott Gordon, DiPietro couldn’t recover and Ryan Smyth decided to go elsewhere.
Ended: Not yet
Pros: Garth has shown patience so far and the ability to find surprising FAs. Home growns Kyle Okposo, Josh Bailey and John Tavares, along with surprise pickups Matt Moulson, Mark Streit and Rob Schremp have show potential.
Cons: None yet

So in 17 years of watching the Islanders, they’ve announced rebuilding 4 separate times. That means on average every 4 years there’s a fresh group of players who are finally supposed to lead us to the promised land. This might almost be more re buildings then every team in NY during the same time line combined. Although the Mets with their “Generation K” might come close. Here’s to next year!

Comments (2)

By Mark D, March 2, 2010 2:01 pm

And for that matter keep Roenick. Since the start of the Olympics, my blog has gotten more hits then ever before. Other then my complaint about Milbury commentating I haven’t done anything that should attract more attention then normal in terms of Olympic coverage. Yet my hits over 30 days have gone from my average of 99-120 to nearly 200 hits for the last month. This is all due to NBC having Milbury as an analyst for Olympic Hockey.

You see, people are searching Milbury more then they ever had before. Since I tend to tag a lot of stuff with “Milbury Sucks”, they find my blog. That’s right, since the Olympics started people searching for “Milbury Sucks” has gone through the roof. For that matter, People are actually searching Milbury like never before, just go by this Google Trends report of Mike Milbury for the last 12 months. It spikes at the start of the Olympics. Lets just say that’s not the best sign.

Going by my google analytics, here’s how people have found my site for the last thirty days.

Mike Milbury Sucks = 32
Mike Milbury = 10
Mike Milbury Comments = 2
Milbury Sucks = 2

So 44 hits, about 1/4 of all my hits are coming via Milbury. Trust me, as much as I use the tag Milbury Sucks, I averaged 2 – 4 hits a month via Milbury.

Also interesting, my main page has 77 hits. Basically when you land on /blog is what I’m talking about. My second most hits? The page for the Tag Milbury Sucks with 34. Its halfway to getting more hits then my main page.

So if somehow NBC somehow sees this, you’ve hired a moron. A pea brained idiot whose better at saying dumb stuff then actually analyzing hockey. Meanwhile I must applaud your hire of Jeremy Roenick. He’s proven to be astute, hard working and with great relevant insights to the current game. I realize some people have issues with Roenick, but you have to ignore that feeling and realize he’s good behind the mic.

In the End though, I have to thank NBC.  Without your hiring of one of the biggest morons in hockey history I wouldn’t be getting nearly this level of exposure. Sure, its not much, but every little bit of traffic I get the better. At some point I’m going to write something that takes off, its just a matter of time.

Comments (0)

By Mark D, February 17, 2010 2:08 am

Watching the USA Vs Switzerland (Lets Go Swiss and Mark Streit!) this afternoon, I asked myself a question. Why is Milbury on TV? Your looking for analysts when you start up, but please NBC, consider his history. Consider the absolute path of failure he lead the Islanders to. Look at his disastrous trade after trade after trade. A complete lack of knowledge when it comes to current players. This was someone who traded you AND THEN you became an All-Star. Only after you left his reign of insanity did you become the player that everyone said you would become.

So why the rant this time? Obviously if you’ve been here before you’ve seen my many posts on Milbury and his destruction of the Islanders. Today during the second intermission of the USA-Swiss game the analysts began talking about Team Canada. The decision was made to go with Roberto Luongo over Martin Brodeur for today’s game. Milbury was immediately up in arms over the matter. Proclaiming that Brodeur was the greatest ever and there was no reason to go with Luongo. Thankfully the person in studio with him began arguing for Luongo to get the start, that at the very least they should see what Luongo could do or at very least give Brodeur a breather. Milbury was unrelenting on his Anti-Luongo crusade and saying that this was a bad move for Team Canada.

What doesn’t Milbury or anyone in studio mention during this rant? That Milbury originally drafted Luongo and after one season behind an awful Islanders team decided to trade him. That this trade is usually considered one of the worst trades in the history of the NHL. It’s no surprise really that Milbury would take a shot at Luongo. Could you imagine what Milbury might feel like if Luongo helps lead Team Canada to the Gold? Probably nothing because he’s a heartless spawn of the devil who was only created to ruin the New York Islanders for 10 years. But whenever someone goes into detail about Luongo they’ll talk about that trade. Point out that when Florida traded Luongo they had no choice because they couldn’t afford him. But Milbury’s trading of Luongo? It was insanity.

So thank you NBC for making Milbury an analyst again when no real network would touch him with a ten foot pole (He was fired from Hockey Night in Canada) unless they are in the Boston area. I hate you Boston. It’s amazing because NBC loves to bring in questionable analysts. With all the possible talking heads for Hockey and Football, NBC decides that Mike Milbury and Matt Millen are the two best qualified guys for the job. I would love to see those two team up together and take over a franchise. Then see how far they could bury said franchise into the ground. Please NBC, there are lots of other better analysts out there. There are lots of talented former NHL players around who probably know the league and the talent far better then Milbury.

In case you thought Milbury was right in his arguement, here’s a little something about Brodeur. Brodeur has a 2-3-1 record in February, has given up 18 goals in six games and played to a save percentage of .850 or below in three of them. I would also go with the seven year younger Luongo. Luongo also hasn’t been played to death like Brodeur has with the Devils. Lets go Luongo, win a gold for Canada!