Hockey: Finally, hockey is back. Two games tonight in the pre-season. Toronto is hosting two games against Ottawa in the ACC. This is most fans first chance to take a look at many of the big names coming up and who've come in for the Leafs: Armstrong, Versteeg, and Khadri. Ottawa isn't dressing a fair number of their top few lines, including Aflerdsson, Spezza, Fisher, Gonchar, and Kovalev.
The Flames are also playing in Vancouver tonight. It's the first pre-season game for both teams. A few dressed tonight will have a chance to see each other again after the Young Stars tournament in Penticton, BC. Like most pre-season games, most of each side will be sitting out when it comes to the top lines. The Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, and a fair chunk of the defensive corps will not be playing; similar to the Flames who won't be dressing captain Iginla, Kipprusof, Conroy, Bouwmeester, Tanguay, or Jokkinen.
It's nice to have it back. Neither game is televised tonight. The Leafs' game against the Senators tomorrow will be on TSN at 1900 EST.
In other news, Roman Polanski's Ghost Writer has a scene that has the Canucks playing against the Blues on the television. It's at least a few years old. It was a broadcast from Rogers' Sportsnet (in upstate New York?) with the play by play being done by the best man in the business, Jim Houston. It was a Vancouver power play that included Elder and Ohlund on the back end and the twins with Markus Naslund up front. It definitely caught my eye.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
August 18: Down the long road
Hockey: The NHL is currently reviewing a new hybrid icing rule. This rule doesn't replace the current icing rule, but it does tack on an important provision. The rule, which is used in US hockey leagues, states that which ever player reaches the defensive-zone face off dot first has the right to the puck. At that point the offensive player cannot make aggressive physical contact to gain position. The idea is that, in the event of a collision or a player falling to the ice, there will be enough time for the player to protect himself before hitting the boards.
This rule makes sense, but is part of what might be the start of a disturbing trend. This rule is brought in because of a general lack of respect for opposing players. It's a safety rule that says, 'the league doesn't trust its players enough to not injure one another.' Agitators are roster spots to cause havoc and annoyance around the ice. To be able to perform at this role they are being asked by hockey culture to have less respect for other players. These aren't the enforcers of the past that would have nothing wrong with roughing anyone up but would do so in a manner that allowed the target to at least try and stare them down first.
Unfortunately, without an discussion out on what the penalty would be (it ought to be a 5 minute unsportsmanlike major), it is impossible to say if the impact on a team would be great enough for a player to take this penalty. The fact is, shit happens. Take the Flames' third game last year, where Iginla and the Oilers' Souray were entangled for some distance chasing down an iced puck. The result was both hitting the ice hard, where Souray sustained a grade 1 concussion and injured his shoulder, which ended up in him missing a stretch of games. Neither of those players are dirty. Iginla will beak and he will fight. What about the Sabres' Kaleta? I don't think any rule will stop him from trying a dirty trick. You'll see him protest on game 1 of the season that they were still "on the dot" when he made contact.
I would like to see less injuries on the ice. However, it needs to be a change in culture. Yzerman weighed in on the head shot debate and said just that. We cannot leave players in the league that have no concern for other players. You can play hard, fast, strong, aggressive, and dominant without being disrespectful or dangerous.
This rule makes sense, but is part of what might be the start of a disturbing trend. This rule is brought in because of a general lack of respect for opposing players. It's a safety rule that says, 'the league doesn't trust its players enough to not injure one another.' Agitators are roster spots to cause havoc and annoyance around the ice. To be able to perform at this role they are being asked by hockey culture to have less respect for other players. These aren't the enforcers of the past that would have nothing wrong with roughing anyone up but would do so in a manner that allowed the target to at least try and stare them down first.
Unfortunately, without an discussion out on what the penalty would be (it ought to be a 5 minute unsportsmanlike major), it is impossible to say if the impact on a team would be great enough for a player to take this penalty. The fact is, shit happens. Take the Flames' third game last year, where Iginla and the Oilers' Souray were entangled for some distance chasing down an iced puck. The result was both hitting the ice hard, where Souray sustained a grade 1 concussion and injured his shoulder, which ended up in him missing a stretch of games. Neither of those players are dirty. Iginla will beak and he will fight. What about the Sabres' Kaleta? I don't think any rule will stop him from trying a dirty trick. You'll see him protest on game 1 of the season that they were still "on the dot" when he made contact.
I would like to see less injuries on the ice. However, it needs to be a change in culture. Yzerman weighed in on the head shot debate and said just that. We cannot leave players in the league that have no concern for other players. You can play hard, fast, strong, aggressive, and dominant without being disrespectful or dangerous.
Monday, August 16, 2010
August 16: Should we listen?
Hockey: Without much of a shock, Kaberle is staying in Toronto. It is the most important thing of the hockey off season! No, it's not. Enough about this. It's a waste of time. Go to tsn.ca/nhl and you get attacked by the most recent thoughts of each and every Leaf. Why is there this much attention for a player staying? There wasn't even this much attention given to Vancouver when they went out and signed Hamhuis or Ballard.
In far more important news, Yzerman is taking every step he can to ensure the Tampa Bay Lightning will be a team of the future. He as gone out head hunting and has brought back Al Murray. Who, you might ask? He was the head scout for the men's national hockey team for the juniors and under-18 teams. Some of those teams have had a great deal of success. Okay, all of them have. He has a keen eye for identifying young talent which will prove to be a perfect asset to a team that needs to start bringing in better late-round draft picks.
Anyways, Kaberle isn't the greatest defensemen in the league. Don't lie to yourself because of the attention the Toronto media is giving him. How about talk shows spend less time asking, "is it worth all this attention?" and start ignoring it. It's just trash news.
In far more important news, Yzerman is taking every step he can to ensure the Tampa Bay Lightning will be a team of the future. He as gone out head hunting and has brought back Al Murray. Who, you might ask? He was the head scout for the men's national hockey team for the juniors and under-18 teams. Some of those teams have had a great deal of success. Okay, all of them have. He has a keen eye for identifying young talent which will prove to be a perfect asset to a team that needs to start bringing in better late-round draft picks.
Anyways, Kaberle isn't the greatest defensemen in the league. Don't lie to yourself because of the attention the Toronto media is giving him. How about talk shows spend less time asking, "is it worth all this attention?" and start ignoring it. It's just trash news.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
August 15: Talk of the town
Hockey: As is always the case, the Toronto Maple Leafs are taking the front page of most hockey sources right now. It isn't because of major events like the signing of a draft pick or reaching an agreement with some under the radar player from over in Europe. Nope, the status quo remains; the Leafs are front page news because Tomas Kaberle has is no-trade clause coming back into effect at midnight (EST) tonight. Because of this earth shattering event, the hockey must keep constant tabs on exactly what Burke is saying, have opinions from Kaberle, and must back months and months into archives to bring out a single quote from either expressing "displeasure" or "unwillingness" to stay in Toronto.
ESPN, TSN, CBC, and Sportsnet all have front page news for Kaberle. The only major exception is on ESPN, which is using the day as speculation central, and is including the likes of Kovalchuk and Niemi in the mix. Interesting, out of the 4, ESPN is the only non-Canadian site. I understand that the Leafs are the NHL's most popular team (theoretically speaking, of course; there is no evidence to support that the Leafs are more popular then any other team), but does the whole NHL universe need to know what the Leafs are doing on a day-by-day basis? Is the hockey world made better because the Maple Leafs have constant coverage on every event, happening, or non-happening? The simple answer is 'no'.
Recall back to June: it is the day after the Chicago Blackhawks have won the Stanley Cup. I awoke the next morning to do my usual look on TSN for some of the specifics of the cup win, thoughts after the game, interesting stats, and what-have-you. I loaded up my browser and directed myself to TSN. I was floored: there, in the middle of the tsn.ca/nhl was a big picture of Tomas Kaberle with a caption referring to if he's going to stay or go. I was shocked. Hockey reporters did everything they could to suppress the urge to talk about Toronto throughout the second season (as has been the case for the past 4 years), but the day after it was done the kids just couldn't wait anymore. This example illustrates how confused Canadian reporting is on hockey. It doesn't matter which network you're watching, at some point in their year that network will open the debate 'is centric focus on Toronto necessary?' Time and time again you will hear some punched up, inflated bullshit to describe how it might be good; however, the final consensus on the matter is a direct "no!" So, we have groups of reporters and analysts stating that this is bad, but there is no change.
Here's another example: an independent arbitrator recently ruled that the Kovalchuk deal was invalid. This prompted the league to review several major contracts, notably the Cauncks' Luongo. I looked around for opinions by the team and Luongo and could not find any. Did anyone think to look into that? Try to ask Luongo about what this might mean? Of course not. Vancouver is not Toronto, thus Vancouver doesn't get the additional in depth look at team happenings. If it isn't clear already, this is a major issue. There is a lot of debate around long term, front-end loaded contracts. Any further ruling by the league will be precedent setting. Why are we not hearing from the players about the impact it would have on them and the team, possible reimbursement for the teams if a contract was voided, or what would happen to those players if they had their contracts torn up? None of this has anything directly to do with Toronto. The response? Cover something else about Toronto.
Until Toronto is doing groundbreaking work, making the playoffs, and is showing success, this coverage is undeserved. The only coverage we should be seeing is a mix of pessimistic/fatalistic outlook for the league's worst team over the last 5 years and the optimistic torch bearing of those who believe that Toronto might turn it around. Both should be mixed into the pack of other team analyzing. The league is not in fantastic shape with a number of teams hemorrhaging money. Fuller coverage of each team will spur more interesting for those teams. That might not increase the fan base immediately, but as kids get turned onto hockey and start to follow some of the reporting on it, they might be able to choose another team. Supporting your local team is fine, but what about supporting a league with a bad leg?
On a related note, Kaberle isn't going anywhere. Burke wants something very, very specific. Mostly, a guarantee that Komisarek will be healthy for the entire season. No trade can give him that.
ESPN, TSN, CBC, and Sportsnet all have front page news for Kaberle. The only major exception is on ESPN, which is using the day as speculation central, and is including the likes of Kovalchuk and Niemi in the mix. Interesting, out of the 4, ESPN is the only non-Canadian site. I understand that the Leafs are the NHL's most popular team (theoretically speaking, of course; there is no evidence to support that the Leafs are more popular then any other team), but does the whole NHL universe need to know what the Leafs are doing on a day-by-day basis? Is the hockey world made better because the Maple Leafs have constant coverage on every event, happening, or non-happening? The simple answer is 'no'.
Recall back to June: it is the day after the Chicago Blackhawks have won the Stanley Cup. I awoke the next morning to do my usual look on TSN for some of the specifics of the cup win, thoughts after the game, interesting stats, and what-have-you. I loaded up my browser and directed myself to TSN. I was floored: there, in the middle of the tsn.ca/nhl was a big picture of Tomas Kaberle with a caption referring to if he's going to stay or go. I was shocked. Hockey reporters did everything they could to suppress the urge to talk about Toronto throughout the second season (as has been the case for the past 4 years), but the day after it was done the kids just couldn't wait anymore. This example illustrates how confused Canadian reporting is on hockey. It doesn't matter which network you're watching, at some point in their year that network will open the debate 'is centric focus on Toronto necessary?' Time and time again you will hear some punched up, inflated bullshit to describe how it might be good; however, the final consensus on the matter is a direct "no!" So, we have groups of reporters and analysts stating that this is bad, but there is no change.
Here's another example: an independent arbitrator recently ruled that the Kovalchuk deal was invalid. This prompted the league to review several major contracts, notably the Cauncks' Luongo. I looked around for opinions by the team and Luongo and could not find any. Did anyone think to look into that? Try to ask Luongo about what this might mean? Of course not. Vancouver is not Toronto, thus Vancouver doesn't get the additional in depth look at team happenings. If it isn't clear already, this is a major issue. There is a lot of debate around long term, front-end loaded contracts. Any further ruling by the league will be precedent setting. Why are we not hearing from the players about the impact it would have on them and the team, possible reimbursement for the teams if a contract was voided, or what would happen to those players if they had their contracts torn up? None of this has anything directly to do with Toronto. The response? Cover something else about Toronto.
Until Toronto is doing groundbreaking work, making the playoffs, and is showing success, this coverage is undeserved. The only coverage we should be seeing is a mix of pessimistic/fatalistic outlook for the league's worst team over the last 5 years and the optimistic torch bearing of those who believe that Toronto might turn it around. Both should be mixed into the pack of other team analyzing. The league is not in fantastic shape with a number of teams hemorrhaging money. Fuller coverage of each team will spur more interesting for those teams. That might not increase the fan base immediately, but as kids get turned onto hockey and start to follow some of the reporting on it, they might be able to choose another team. Supporting your local team is fine, but what about supporting a league with a bad leg?
On a related note, Kaberle isn't going anywhere. Burke wants something very, very specific. Mostly, a guarantee that Komisarek will be healthy for the entire season. No trade can give him that.
Monday, August 9, 2010
August 9: Decision made
Hockey: An independent arbitrator reviewing the Kovalchuk contract with the Devils has rules that the contract's aim was to circumvent the salary cap and has voided the contract. This means Kovalchuk will become an unrestricted free agent again.
The manner which the Devils went about introducing Kovalchuk following the attempt at a 17-year contract will ultimately be a hindrance to Kovalchuk. He was introduced as a Devil, the next step for the organization, the final piece, and what have you. Now that he is a UFA again, where will he go? He has shown his hand and most people are well aware of the amount of money he thinks he is worth. It is doubtful that any NHL will be willing to pay $11.5 million a season for him, even if they are more subtle about circumventing the cap.
I'm leaning to almost say Russia. The KHL has that kind of money and won't be afraid to aggressive pursue Kovalchuk following the failure of the Devils' contract to stick. Kovalchuk doesn't seem to care about how other teams look at him. After all, he did turn down a very nice offer from Atlanta that he turned down--a contract worth about $100 million over 12-years. That contract wouldn't have been stopped by the league.
In all seriousness, Kovalchuk is in a terrible position. He walked from his draft team because he wanted to be somewhere he could win. When he got there he asked for too much money. Now he's got no home, no contract, and only a month left of summer before he really needs to be looking at where to play. If he wants to stay respectable off-ice then he is going to have to save face, choose the Devils at the $6 million that he was going to be making this year, and then try again next year.
The manner which the Devils went about introducing Kovalchuk following the attempt at a 17-year contract will ultimately be a hindrance to Kovalchuk. He was introduced as a Devil, the next step for the organization, the final piece, and what have you. Now that he is a UFA again, where will he go? He has shown his hand and most people are well aware of the amount of money he thinks he is worth. It is doubtful that any NHL will be willing to pay $11.5 million a season for him, even if they are more subtle about circumventing the cap.
I'm leaning to almost say Russia. The KHL has that kind of money and won't be afraid to aggressive pursue Kovalchuk following the failure of the Devils' contract to stick. Kovalchuk doesn't seem to care about how other teams look at him. After all, he did turn down a very nice offer from Atlanta that he turned down--a contract worth about $100 million over 12-years. That contract wouldn't have been stopped by the league.
In all seriousness, Kovalchuk is in a terrible position. He walked from his draft team because he wanted to be somewhere he could win. When he got there he asked for too much money. Now he's got no home, no contract, and only a month left of summer before he really needs to be looking at where to play. If he wants to stay respectable off-ice then he is going to have to save face, choose the Devils at the $6 million that he was going to be making this year, and then try again next year.
Monday, August 2, 2010
August 2: Decisions
Hockey: Call it cap troubles or call it fear of the sophomore curse, Chicago has walked away from the $2.75 million salary for Anti Niemi that was set by an arbitrator. Instead, the goalie that recorded 16 wins in the playoffs last year to win the Blackhawks a Stanley Cup, is an unrestricted free agent. At age 26, the Finnish goalie would be a big asset to a wide array of teams looking for... well, anything and everything. He's got 22 playoff games, he's got a cup, and he's got the desire to do it again. There are a few places that could be his new home, depending on what a team will willing to make work.
A few teams that have some cap space open might be interested in Niemi. However, many of the teams are a lot closer to the cap then is currently shown. Take the Edmonton Oilers. That team will be bringing in at least 3 entry level contracts: Hall, Eberle, and Paarjarvi-Svensson (plus, potentially, Omark). Those contracts don't count in full against the team until any of those player play more than nine games. Edmonton still has room, but already have Khabibulin, Deslauriers, and Dubnyk. Niemi would give the Oilers some good trade pieces in two young goaltenders that have some NHL experience.
The Atlanta Thrashers have Chris Mason and Ondrej Pavelec, two goaltenders that will split the load this year. Tampa Bay has Dan Ellis and Mike Smith as their two keepers, but after Smith's lackluster couple of seasons since arriving in the Brad Richards trade, he might be on the outside if Niemi moves in. Some other names in the mix could be Carolina, due to the recent up-and-down play and injuries of Cam Ward; Nashville doesn't have a name to a backup yet, but with Renne already making $3.4 million, adding a $2.75 million to the goaltending might be a bit much; and the Islanders could add to their netminding mess by adding Niemi to play in front of Roloson, but, like so many teams talked about, Niemi might be part of a later trade equation.
The last team with a need for a goalie and has cap room would be the Dallas Stars. There's a great deal of irony here, as the Chicago Blackhawks have signed former-Star Marty Turco. This leaves the net being cared for by Kari Lehtonen and Andrew Raycroft. For a team that is looking to move past the era of Turco and Modano, a pick up like Niemi might go a long way for the team, even if it means having $7 million invested in 3 goalies.
Almost any team could use this guy. I said earlier that Chicago would be crazy to get rid of Niemi. I used the fact that Chicago dumped about $15 million in cap to facilitate an environment that could keep Niemi. However, in the end, the money still dictated the final sale. With Huet making $5.625 million the Blackhawks could not afford to be paying over $8 million in goaltending. A big loss for that team, but the gain for the rest of the league and maybe a week of fun speculation and talk about the Stanley Cup winning goaltender of last year.
A few teams that have some cap space open might be interested in Niemi. However, many of the teams are a lot closer to the cap then is currently shown. Take the Edmonton Oilers. That team will be bringing in at least 3 entry level contracts: Hall, Eberle, and Paarjarvi-Svensson (plus, potentially, Omark). Those contracts don't count in full against the team until any of those player play more than nine games. Edmonton still has room, but already have Khabibulin, Deslauriers, and Dubnyk. Niemi would give the Oilers some good trade pieces in two young goaltenders that have some NHL experience.
The Atlanta Thrashers have Chris Mason and Ondrej Pavelec, two goaltenders that will split the load this year. Tampa Bay has Dan Ellis and Mike Smith as their two keepers, but after Smith's lackluster couple of seasons since arriving in the Brad Richards trade, he might be on the outside if Niemi moves in. Some other names in the mix could be Carolina, due to the recent up-and-down play and injuries of Cam Ward; Nashville doesn't have a name to a backup yet, but with Renne already making $3.4 million, adding a $2.75 million to the goaltending might be a bit much; and the Islanders could add to their netminding mess by adding Niemi to play in front of Roloson, but, like so many teams talked about, Niemi might be part of a later trade equation.
The last team with a need for a goalie and has cap room would be the Dallas Stars. There's a great deal of irony here, as the Chicago Blackhawks have signed former-Star Marty Turco. This leaves the net being cared for by Kari Lehtonen and Andrew Raycroft. For a team that is looking to move past the era of Turco and Modano, a pick up like Niemi might go a long way for the team, even if it means having $7 million invested in 3 goalies.
Almost any team could use this guy. I said earlier that Chicago would be crazy to get rid of Niemi. I used the fact that Chicago dumped about $15 million in cap to facilitate an environment that could keep Niemi. However, in the end, the money still dictated the final sale. With Huet making $5.625 million the Blackhawks could not afford to be paying over $8 million in goaltending. A big loss for that team, but the gain for the rest of the league and maybe a week of fun speculation and talk about the Stanley Cup winning goaltender of last year.
Friday, July 23, 2010
July 23: OCC (1)
Out of Character: I was killing time browsing the fun world of /r/. While there I came across a lengthy post about a guy who turned down a girl's advances. The situation was not all that uncommon at your given pub or bar. Average guys sees attractive girl, executes a well timed approach (in this case, while waiting for a drink at the bar), and engages in a conversations after drinks had been retrieved. The conversation went on and the two learned they had many things in common: music, movies, past times, and the like. The girl then pops the question, "Are you going to buy me a drink?"
This is a terrible question that no man wants to hear. Guys love it; men hate it. The difference? A guy is male who has a goal of seeking out a woman for sex that evening. He wears his Ed Hardy tees, roughed in Guess jeans, and the cleanest pair of work boots you've ever seen. Guys drink to boost their confidence enough to engage women and believe that offerings of liquor is the direct path to naked, genital bumping sleep over; men are gentlemen. They exude confidence. They guys or men around them feed off of his presence. Men put their values ahead of opportunity. Hopefully this distinction does help in understanding why men don't like this question.
Men like conversation. They like learning about the woman they're talking to. Pets, past times, and peeves, nothing is missed. All the while he is thinking about two things. First, what is his escape route incase the situation gets pear shaped. Second, how does he make her feel like the most important woman in the building and seal the deal with a good night kiss and a future date. All this is going on in a gentleman's head as the conversation progresses. When a woman asks about the drink she is doing a few covert things. "Is he willing to pay for things (i.e., what is his financial standing)? Does he do what I ask or request (exertion of control)? If he does, does he get me what I asked for?" All of this in one simple question.
Men are based on values. Chivalry is a value that is held dear. Men asked this question are not denying chivalry when they don't oblige the request for free booze. Women who have the goal of a good time out can easily extort free alcohol from the numerous guys in the clubs. Yet, women seem to fail to tell the difference between a man and a guy. This leads to women claiming a ruined night because some asshole didn't dash to the bartender asking for that rye and ginger. It's unfair to put us men in the same category as the throngs of guys lurking around the dance floor.
If we don't want to buy you a drink it isn't because we're cheap, spiteful, think you're unattractive, snooty, or what-have-you. Us men don't buy you a drink because we believe that it signifies the end of the conversation. Once that precious resource is gathered, you women walk away because of a pressing engagement with your friends that you've been neglecting. So, don't ask us. Because a guy will offer a drink when you've already got a full one in your hand. A man will offer you a drink when you're almost empty or when he wants to preserve the conversation. Finally, men are interested in you and not just your vagina. Drink or no drink, a conversation can remain rich and stimulating. Guys want you liquored up so the distinction between person and vagina are diminished.
In the end, our man in this story was called out for being disrespectful and labeled an asshole because he believed what all gentleman believe. A woman is worth what she can carry. If she is unable to carry a conversation due to being needy then a man won't be bothered. Women, don't be like this. Understand that some of us are there to learn more about you and make your night special, even if you don't give us a date, a kiss good night, or even your number. Gentlemen are a dying breed, but that's due to the evolution of the bar-scene. If women start seeking our the gentleman again the bars will soon repopulate with men.
I will offer a drink, but I will never buy one if asked to. It's a value that I stand by. And I put my values in front of opportunity.
This is a terrible question that no man wants to hear. Guys love it; men hate it. The difference? A guy is male who has a goal of seeking out a woman for sex that evening. He wears his Ed Hardy tees, roughed in Guess jeans, and the cleanest pair of work boots you've ever seen. Guys drink to boost their confidence enough to engage women and believe that offerings of liquor is the direct path to naked, genital bumping sleep over; men are gentlemen. They exude confidence. They guys or men around them feed off of his presence. Men put their values ahead of opportunity. Hopefully this distinction does help in understanding why men don't like this question.
Men like conversation. They like learning about the woman they're talking to. Pets, past times, and peeves, nothing is missed. All the while he is thinking about two things. First, what is his escape route incase the situation gets pear shaped. Second, how does he make her feel like the most important woman in the building and seal the deal with a good night kiss and a future date. All this is going on in a gentleman's head as the conversation progresses. When a woman asks about the drink she is doing a few covert things. "Is he willing to pay for things (i.e., what is his financial standing)? Does he do what I ask or request (exertion of control)? If he does, does he get me what I asked for?" All of this in one simple question.
Men are based on values. Chivalry is a value that is held dear. Men asked this question are not denying chivalry when they don't oblige the request for free booze. Women who have the goal of a good time out can easily extort free alcohol from the numerous guys in the clubs. Yet, women seem to fail to tell the difference between a man and a guy. This leads to women claiming a ruined night because some asshole didn't dash to the bartender asking for that rye and ginger. It's unfair to put us men in the same category as the throngs of guys lurking around the dance floor.
If we don't want to buy you a drink it isn't because we're cheap, spiteful, think you're unattractive, snooty, or what-have-you. Us men don't buy you a drink because we believe that it signifies the end of the conversation. Once that precious resource is gathered, you women walk away because of a pressing engagement with your friends that you've been neglecting. So, don't ask us. Because a guy will offer a drink when you've already got a full one in your hand. A man will offer you a drink when you're almost empty or when he wants to preserve the conversation. Finally, men are interested in you and not just your vagina. Drink or no drink, a conversation can remain rich and stimulating. Guys want you liquored up so the distinction between person and vagina are diminished.
In the end, our man in this story was called out for being disrespectful and labeled an asshole because he believed what all gentleman believe. A woman is worth what she can carry. If she is unable to carry a conversation due to being needy then a man won't be bothered. Women, don't be like this. Understand that some of us are there to learn more about you and make your night special, even if you don't give us a date, a kiss good night, or even your number. Gentlemen are a dying breed, but that's due to the evolution of the bar-scene. If women start seeking our the gentleman again the bars will soon repopulate with men.
I will offer a drink, but I will never buy one if asked to. It's a value that I stand by. And I put my values in front of opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)