How to lose a hockey pool in 16 easy steps

So a few weeks ago, we had our annual NHL playoff pool draft.

Ryan Getzlaf and the rest of the players I drafted in my playoff pool really let me down this year.

I was pretty excited. I had just come off a weekend where I came second in a 22-person poker tournament, and won my regular season keeper pool. I had a good feeling going into the draft.

And everything was looking good, until they actually dropped the puck on the first game of action. Now I am in last place and will finish there. I actually have no players left in my pool, as they have all been eliminated.

How could things have turned out so badly?

It all started at the draft. I ended up with the sixth pick out of six. My prediction of a final four was Washington against Pittsburgh, and San Jose against Anaheim, with the Sharks and Caps in the finals.

Now, with the sixth pick, I knew Pittsburgh would be gone quickly. So I planned to take Washington with my first two picks.

Anyways, here are my picks, and my thinking behind each one (Note: Straight points, no goalies).

Round 1, #6 overall: Ryan Getzlaf

Round 2, #7 overall: Corey Perry

Already my strategy is out the window. Crosby and Malkin are already gone. I knew I could take Letang and Dupuis, or Kunitz and Neal, or whoever. But my worry was that by the time it got back to me, all the Pens would be gone. I didn’t want just two Pens, so I decided to let them go.

I was all set to take Ovi and Backstrom, but the guy in front of me took Ovi. I didn’t really want Washington if I couldn’t have Ovi, so I decided to take the two best players from one of my other teams. So I took Getzlaf and Perry.

Round 3, #18 overall: Phil Kessel

Round 4, #19 overall: Nazem Kadri

I was right about not taking the Pens. By the time it got back to me, a total of seven Pens were already selected. The top players from the Blackhawks were gone. And the top three Caps.

At this point, I wanted an Eastern conference team. Subban was also gone, so I started looking at what team was left was the best. Since the Pens and Caps were gone, I was stuck a little. I didn’t want to choose Montreal yet. I wasn’t taking Ottawa at all. I had no faith in the Rangers to score, even if they could win the series. It was too early to take the Islanders.

So I went with the Bruins-Leafs matchup. I honestly believed the Leafs could beat the Bruins. I didn’t like the way the Bruins played going into the playoffs. They looked tired and not able to score. So I chose two Leafs.

Mistake #1: I don’t think this was a bad decision. As I said, I wanted an Eastern conference team. But I figured the Sharks were good for the final four. I should have started choosing Sharks players.

Round 5, #30 overall: Joffrey Lupul

Round 6, #31 overall: John Tavares

Here’s where choosing the Leafs earlier hurt me a little. By the time it was my picks again, Selanne and Ryan were taken. So I couldn’t take the best players left from the Ducks. So I took the next best player on the Leafs. And then went off the board with Tavares, in case there was a major upset.

Mistake #2: I still should have taken a Shark though. At this point, I could have had three or four of them.

Round 7, #42 overall: Max Pacioretty

Round 8, #43 overall: Michael Ryder

Thornton was now taken, as was Couture and Marleau. So I took the best players left from the team no one had really chosen: Montreal.

Mistake #3: I have now have three East coast teams, and only two players from the west.

Round 9, #54 overall: Chris Stewart

Round 10, #55 overall: David Backes

Here’s where my earlier mistakes started screwing me up. I took Blues, not because I thought they could win, but because I needed a Western conference team and no one had chosen them yet. All the top players from most of the other teams were gone (including five Kings).

I thought the Blues had a shot, but this was choosing a team more out of necessity than anything.

Round 11, #66 overall: Alex Steen

Round 12:  #67 overall: Matt Moulson

I get back on track with these picks. Take the best players left from teams I’ve chosen. I have the top two Islanders in case of an upset. Plus three Blues. So even if I made mistakes earlier, I’m at least building up those teams. Lesson learned, right?

Round 13: #78 overall: Zach Parise

Round 14: #79 overall: Ryan Suter.

Sigh, I just don’t learn, do I? I should have kept with my strategy. And I actually did debate it for a minute or so. I was up in the air between Phaneuf and a Hab player (Tomas Plekanec, Brendan Gallagher and Alexander Galchenyuk were still available).

But in the end, I out-thought myself. “Why, if the Wild upset the Blackhawks, I’ll be the only one with Wild players and will be laughing.”

At no point did I think the Wild had a shot. This wouldn’t have been a bad strategy if I had players from three or four teams. But I was already spread thin. I should have taken other players.

Mistake #4: Taking players from too many teams, instead of focusing on a core group.

Conclusion:

In the end, I choose 14 players from six teams. Amazingly, all six of those teams are now eliminated. Not one made it past the first round. That’s just sad.

But in the end, I broke from my strategy too much. I spread the players out amongst too many teams. I didn’t take players from three of the final four teams I had. Honestly, I could have taken Letang and Iginla in the first and second round (or whoever from the Pens I wanted), and then started taking Sharks.

Now I sit in last place with no players left in the playoffs.

Not a good playoff draft. Can I get a do-over?

What happened to the Habs?

So the Habs lost yesterday to the Ottawa Senators in the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Brandon Prust is one of the few Habs that will go to the net.

I plan on doing another post next week about what the Habs need to do in the offseason.

But for now, we should look at what happened? Why did the Habs lose?

The goaltending? Outcoached? Lack of toughness?

No, it all comes down to one thing: Going to the net. Simple, but that’s the problem.

Look at the goals scored by the Ottawa Senators in any game. They weren’t scoring on bombs from the point, or one-timers. They were going to the net, creating havoc and getting the bounces. But the bounces were coming for the Sens because guys were in position.

Look at game 4 of the series. The Habs were up 2-0 midway through the third. Mika Zibanejad went to the net, the puck went off his skate and into the net. Some say it was kicked in. It doesn’t matter. The point is, Zibanejad put himself into position to score. The game-tying goal? Cory Conacher going to the net.

Look at last night’s game. The Sens were heading to the net all game. Zack Smith and Conacher each scored in this manner. But the goal that sealed it was the shorthanded one by the Kyle Turris. After that goal, the Habs lost all emotion and fight. But how did Turris score? On a shorthanded 2-on-1, he went to the net. Plekanec pushed Turris into Budaj, and the puck went off Turris and into the net.

If Turris didn’t make a beeline for the net, that never would have happened.

Now think of the other side. Can you think of a goal the Habs scored the same way? No. They were trying to score from the point with no one screening Anderson. The Habs goal last night was by P.K. Subban on a shot from the point. That was it. In Game 3, it was Rene Bourque scoring on a fluke goal from the slot that Anderson should have had. Even in Game 4, Subban’s and Galchenyuk’s goals were shots, but no one was going toward the net.

It was the biggest difference in the series. As mentioned, Ottawa got the bounces because they worked for them. How many times did we see a Montreal player throw it to the net, and have the puck bounce off Anderson and no one there for the rebound? Way too many.

The Habs are in need of players who are willing to do this. Sure, Prust and Moen may do it, but they’re not goal scorers. The Habs need guys who can screen the goal and make life difficult for the other team’s goalie.

If not, it will be hard to win any playoff series in the future.

So close to a poker championship

So once again I try for an NCPT poker victory.

Doyle Brunson is laughing at my poker skills. But hey, I’m getting better.

And this month was the closest I have ever gotten, plus I pull off the greatest comeback in NCPT history. But did I pull out the victory? Read on.

Hand #1

I was a bit late, but show up just as the first hand is winding down. Someone had put Chris all-in, and he eventually called, showing AA. His opponent hit a straight, and Chris had to rebuy in after one hand.

I had noticed that I wasn’t playing that great, and Paul suggested I try playing more hands. So that was my goal. My first hand was J8 suited, and I figure that’s good enough to call.

I hit two pair on the flop. I bet, everyone except for Chris folds. The turn gives me another eight. I can’t remember if there is betting here or not. I think the river brought an ace. I put in a fair-sized bet. Chris thinks about it for a while, and eventually calls. He shows the other eight for a set. I take home a nice-size pot.

At this point, I stayed out of a lot of hands. Not on purpose, but because there was some loose play going on. Jason was calling everything and pretty much sucking out. He ended up with a huge chip stack. But to give you an idea of his play: At one point, someone went all in and Jason and another guy called. The flop comes, and Jason bets. The other guy folds. Jason shows nothing. He didn’t even have a pair. Why bet when someone could have the opportunity to knock out a player. So the guy ended up tripling up.

Another hand was when someone went all-in preflop, and Jason called with something like Q6 offsuit. So that guy ended up doubling up.

Despite this type of play, a lot of times he was hitting with these hands. He would call anything, and hit most of the time. So I wanted to stay out of his way for a while. He was easily the chip leader a few hands into the game and stayed there most of the night.

However, when I did get cards, there wasn’t a lot of action. I did win some small pots, but nothing major. Sp I’m going to skip to the final table.

I wasn’t getting much, and when I did (I had AA and QQ at two points), no one would call.

After starting out with 20 people, we eventually got down to the final five (top four pay). The guy on my right and myself each had $35 in chips (blinds were $10-$20), so we both knew one of us would be out soon. The other ended up going all-in with Jason calling and getting lucky, again.

I figure at this point, I’m in the money. Things are good. In the big blind, I look down at something like 8-2 offsuit, and I’ve been raised all-in. Only another $15 left total, but I fold.

This brings me to my most pivotal hand:

Hand #2

I’m in the small blind. I have $10 in the pot, and a $5 chip left. Jason calls, and I look down at a J6 offsuit. I sigh. It just wasn’t my night. I figure I may as well call. Matt calls as well.

There was no betting, but I ended up getting a runner-runner to hit a straight. So I triple up. Not a lot, still only $45. But it’s better than where I was.

I started moving in some more. Picking up some pots, especially against Jason, whose luck seemed to be running out. After a few more hands, I was up to $100 in chips. And I kept climbing.

Jason was actually getting frustrated with me, because he wasn’t able to suck out. Eventually, Matt was eliminated.

Hand #3

Jason kept losing chips, and at one point raised to $100 (five times the blinds). You could tell he was frustrated, as he kept making comments about how big cards weren’t catching anything every time he lost a pot. I looked down at pocket sevens, and re-raised him all-in.

He called, holding AQ offsuit. I’m a slight favourite, and my luck holds out, and I win the pot. About 20 minutes before, I didn’t even have enough chips to cover a big blind, and here I am in the final two and the chip leader (about $700 in chips, I estimate).

It was me and Giovanni. I start whittling away at his chips. But because there’s so many chips at the table (I figure $1,200 in chips), that even with a chip lead, it would take a while. I did flop trip kings at one point, but couldn’t get him to call.

There were three key hands heads up that I’ll talk about quickly.

Hand #4

I had J of spades (not sure of my other card). There was just a call. The flop came K of spades, Q of spades and a four. No bets. The turn brought a nine of spades. Maybe a small bet. Then the turn brought a six of spades. So I have the second nut flush.

I bet, and Giovanni announces a raise. While he’s deciding what to raise it to, I figure he has either the ace or a 10. It’s a 50-50 chance, so when he announces all-in, I call. He had the ace for the nut flush.

So he doubles up, and we actually go back and forth for a little bit for the next little bit.

Hand #5

Out of all my hands, this was the key one. Giovanni was ahead in chips by a little bit. He raised pre-flop, and I look down at a AJ offsuit. I’m thinking he might have a pair, so I go all-in. Giovanni thinks for a second, and then calls. He has an AT offsuit.

I’m favoured to win this hand about 70 per cent of the time. And because Giovanni and I are so close in chips, a loss here would cripple him, I think.

But of the five cards that get turned over, two of them are fours, and two of them are eights. So we split the pot. Argh.

My luck starts to change here, but for the worse. I can’t catch a good pre-flop raising hand. When I do raise (usually with nothing), I get re-raised. If we do see a flop, I miss completely.

Hand #6

With the blinds at $20-$40, I have $200 left in chips. I need to double up soon. I see a T9 of spades. I was thinking of raising three times the blinds, but since that only leaves me with $80 in chips, I decide to move all-in. Giovanni calls with A6 offsuit.

Odds are about even. But not even one spade shows up on the flop. I don’t hit on the turn or the river, and I’m out.

And with that, my poker tournament was over. Second place, which is pretty good considering where I was with about an hour left in the tournament.

My more aggressive play paid off somewhat, until my cards went cold during heads-up. Although I did have to play passive for a while with the way things were going.

Hopefully, that’s the key thing. Being able to change my strategy on the fly.

I’ve never been able to finish higher than fourth before, so coming second was great. Next month, I’ll have to improve on that.

Seven reasons why Antti Niemi should win the Vezina

There’s not a player in the NHL who is more underrated right now than Antti Niemi.

Antti Niemi should win the Vezina trophy this year.

The San Jose Sharks goalie has pretty much done it all this season. Yet, he’s not getting the love of a Tuuka Rask, Sergei Bobrovsky or a Niklas Backstrom.

Where’s the love for Niemi? Where’s his Vezina-trophy support?

If he was starting for an Eastern conference team, people would have already anointed him the award.

In this shortened-season, Niemi has come forward as one of the best goalies in the league. It’s time for Niemi to be seriously considered for the Vezina.

1) The numbers.

Sure, talking about numbers is dry, but that’s the main thing voters look for, so let’s get it out of the way first. Niemi has proven to be great this year. After last night’s action, he is tied for first in wins (22), second in games started (39), eighth in GAA (2.12), tied for fifth in save percentage (.926) and tied for fourth in shutouts (four, just one behind the leaders).

In 39 games started, Niemi has kept the opponents to two goals or less 24 times almost 62 per cent of the time). He’s had a six- and seven-game winning streaks.

2) The favourites haven’t stepped up.

Before the season, the odds-on favourites would have been Henrik Lundqvist, Jonathan Quick, and Pekka Rinne, with possibly Carey Price and Jaroslav Halak in the discussion. With the exception of Lundqvist (more on him later), Niemi has better numbers than all of them. Whether it’s the goalie’s fault, or the fact the team in front of him has regressed, those five guys have not stepped up to the plate this season when it comes to the Vezina conversation.

This opens the door for a non-favourite to win.

3) Others never played in enough games.

The top four goalies in the league in goals against average look like this: Craig Anderson, Ray Emery, Corey Crawford and Tuuka Rask. Their games started also look like this: 19, 18, 24 and 29. If Rask gets to 35 games played (and that’s a big if at this point, it would be the same as starting just under 60 games in an regular 82-game season.

Maybe that’s fine for some people. Tim Thomas won the Vezina starting less than 60 games. For me, it’s not enough. I think the Vezina should go to a guy who starts at least 80 per cent of the time (barring injury).

4) Sentimental favourites haven’t beed good enough.

This is key. Usually, when there’s no clear cut favourite, you get an older guy or someone who has the historical pedigree that becomes a sentimental vote. Think of Nicklas Lidstrom when he won a Norris in 2011 with a plus/minus of -2. But this year hasn’t seen a Martin Brodeur, a Roberto Luongo or a Miika Kiprusoff step up.

This means Niemi won’t be losing votes to a old-time favourite that is only putting up a half-decent season.

5) Niemi has beaten the top teams.

He’s played Anaheim four times, Chicago three times, Vancouver three times and L.A. three times. He’s had trouble against Chicago (but who hasn’t), but he’s defeated the other teams eight times in 10 games. So he’s stacking up his wins against top competition.

Looking at it another way, 36 per cent of his wins have come against the top four teams in the conference. He’s not a goalie padding his stats against bottom-feeders.

6) He’s carrying his team.

Yes, the Sharks started off hot thanks to Patrick Marleau and Joe Thornton setting early-season records. But when the team came crashing down to earth, Niemi almost single-handedly kept the Sharks in the playoff hunt. In February alone, he lost four games when he kept his opponents to only one goal (one regulation loss, and three in the shootout). That’s three points the Sharks had no business getting. He picked up another win that month when he gave up only one goal in a 2-1 shootout win over the St. Louis Blues. He picked up another loss to Chicago when he only allowed two goals.

In total, Niemi had two wins, four losses and four overtime/shootout losses in February. Not great numbers looking at it that way. But the Sharks only scored 13 goals in those 10 games. Niemi had a 1.84 GAA and a .934 save percentage that month. The Sharks are six points up on ninth place right now. If it wasn’t for Niemi in that stretch when the rest of the team was brutal, they would be fighting for eighth.

7) Playoffs

Not only are the Sharks in the playoffs at the moment, but they’re battling for home ice advantage. The Sharks are in fifth spot, tied with the Kings in points. But the Kings, who are in fourth, have the tiebreaker.

Conclusion

Niemi’s top two opponents in the Vezina race are Rask and Bobrovsky, and maybe Lundqvist. Rask has a much better defence in front of him, and doesn’t start enough games, IMO.

Bobrovsky has been great, but if Columbus doesn’t make the playoffs, it hurts his chances. Same with Lundqvist. But their numbers are very similar to Niemi’s. Let’s look at the tape:

Niemi: 39 games started, 22 wins, 2.12 GAA, .926 save percentage and four shutouts.

Bobrovsky: 32 games started, 17 wins, 2.03 GAA, .931 save percentage and four shutouts.

Lundqvist: 37 games started, 19 wins, 2.09 GAA, .926  save percentage and one shutout.

Pretty similar, eh? Yet, Bobrovskyand Lundqvist are being hailed as great goalies, whereas Niemi doesn’t get that same love.

And just for fun, let’s add in Rask’s numbers:

Rask: 29 games started, 17 wins, 1.99 GAA, .929 save percentage, three shutouts.

It’s not like Rask is running away with the stats. He’s behind Niemi in wins and shutouts, only 0.03 save percentage ahead, and ahead by 0.13 GAA. As mentioned, Rask has a much better team ahead of him, so that should factor in.

Niklas Backstrom is also getting a lot of attention, but his numbers don’t compare to the other three.

Backstrom: 36 games started, 22 wins, 2.40 GAA, .912 save percentage and two shutouts.

I’m going to admit that I know more about Niemi because I have him on my keeper pool team. While it doesn’t come into consideration for the Vezina, Niemi is the top goalie in my league. Easily. He has 63 points. Second place is Braden Holtby, and he’s eight points behind.

So sure, I’m a little biased when it comes to Niemi. But the numbers don’t lie.

He deserves the Vezina.

33 things I learned being a parent

I’ve learned a lot in the last two-and-a-half years of being a parent.

Bill Clinton is receiving a father of the year award this year.

For most of that time, I’ve been a stay-at-home dad of twin girls. I’ve mostly learned that whatever advice someone has given you, ignore it, because it probably won’t work on your kids.

Instead, you need to adapt to survive the day-to-day challenge of raising your children. Whether that means letting them watch a little extra TV when they are sick, or feeding them the same foods because the kids love it and will eat (Katie loves broccoli  I could feed it to her every day no problem), you need to figure out your own kids.

But just because advice doesn’t really work, doesn’t mean we can’t share what we learn. For me, here are 33 things I’ve learned since becoming a parent.

1. Nursery rhymes are depressing.

2. If there’s a choice between watching Toopy & Binoo and hockey, you’re watching Toopy & Binoo.

3. Your house can always get messier, even if you don’t think it’s possible.

4. No matter how much time you spend preparing a meal made up of only ingredients your kids like, they’ll be much more happy eating plain crackers.

5. No matter how often you ask them not to, your family and in-laws are going to give your kids junk food.

6. You think strangers carry all sorts of germs, and won’t let them near your kids.

7. There’s no point in buying anything brand new and not expecting it to get dirty/scratched/chipped.

8. The kids will not want to nap on the day you could really use one.

9. Crafts are always messier than what it looks like on TV.

10. Just because a time-out works for one kid doesn’t mean it will work for the other.

11. No matter how hard you try to prevent it, at some point, the kids will colour the TV with their crayons.

12. Cheerios are the best things to use to keep a baby entertained when they first start eating.

13. Before, you would get disgusted by the easiest thing. Now, you can take out logs of poop out of the bathtub without so much of a dry-heave (at least by the third time).

14. The Internet is your best friend when your child has a rash/illness/bruise.

15. Kids sleeping on the car ride home may be the only peace you get for a week.

16. Bringing a tablet when you eat at a restaurant filled with videos of their favourite cartoons is the one surefire way to make sure you get to finish your meal.

17. You can never have too many batteries.

18. You actually don’t need that many toys.

19. You ask someone else to throw away certain items because you can’t bear to do it (such as the baby’s bellybutton when it falls off).

20. The slideshow at my kids’ weddings will be awesome, because they’ll have about 100,000 photos to choose from, and that’s just the first few years of life.

21. There is no point in folding clothes.

22. It makes you angry when you hear a celebrity with a personal chef, maid, trainer and full-time nanny wins a parent of the year award.

23. You hide in the pantry to eat junk food.

24. A kid’s nap is the perfect time to clean the house and cook dinner. Of course, you spend it on Facebook and watching TV shows on your PVR.

25. Nothing is spill-proof.

26. The bathroom is the last safe refuge away from everything. That’s why guys will go in there with a laptop and a newspaper and stay there for an hour.

27. The first time your baby rolls off a table or a bed, you freak. The fifth time, it’s all good.

28. Logic has no place when kids are fighting over the same toy.

29. You won’t watch any of your favourite shows when the kids around because of the off-chance there might be a little bit of cursing they might pick up.

30. A minivan is probably the greatest way to travel ever.

31. When your baby is first born, and a soother drops on the floor, you would never give it back to the kid without sterilizing it first. It doesn’t take long before you simply wipe it in your jeans and hand it back.

32. Your child’s favourite books will be in a language you can’t read (in my case, French)

33. If you hand a child a phone, 911 will be dialed at some point.

What about you? What have you learned since becoming a parent?

Alexei Kovalev retires: Is Hall of Fame next?

So Alexei Kovalev retired from the NHL yesterday, and already there is speculation that he should be a hall of famer.

Alexei Kovalev played for the Habs for a few years.

But is he good enough to be elected to the hall four years from now? I thought it would be fun to try and figure it out.

A couple of years ago, I said a hall of famer should meet most of the Stanley Cups, leadership, better playoff performer than regular season, individual awards, great statistical seasons (ie- 50 goals), considered a top player at their position during their career, overall career statistics, international play and intangibles.

So let’s see how many of these Kovalev hits:

Stanley Cups: He won a Cup with the New York Rangers back in 1994, and was actually one of the first four Russian players to have their names engraved on the Cup. He finished that playoffs with nine goals and 21 points in 23 games, which was third on the team.

Leadership: This all depends on who you ask. Some say he was great, especially in Montreal and in the playoffs. Others (such as me) believe he was more detrimental to the team, as he there were games he just wouldn’t show up for.

Better playoff performer than regular season: Yes, but just barely. In 123 playoff games, he had 45 goals and 100 points. Just like the regular season though, there were some games/series he showed up for, some he didn’t.

Individual awards: None, but he made the all-star team three times.

Great statistical seasons: None. He never had a 50-goal season, or even a 100-point season.

Considered a top player at their position during their career: No. He was once a second team all-star, but over his career, he was shadowed by Teemu Selanne, Jaromir Jagr, Jarome Iginla Brett Hull and countless other right wingers.

Overall career statistics: He finished with 430 goals and 599 assists, for 1,029 points. So those are pretty decent numbers, especially since he played in the dead puck era.

International play: Won a world junior medal, an Olympic gold medal, an Olympic bronze medal and a bronze world championship.

Intangibles: Often called “the most talented player in the game,” usually preceded by “When he wants to be.” He had some sick moves, and opposing fans were always scared of him. And he was responsible for my favourite Darcy Tucker highlight of all-time.

In the end, Kovalev meets only four of the criteria. He was a decent player, but he wasn’t good enough for the Hall of Fame. Maybe if he wanted to be the most talented player in the game more often, it would be a different story.

Derek Sanderson Crossing the Line book review

So last week I read what I now consider to be one of the greatest hockey autobiographies I’ve ever read.

Derek Sanderson wrote a great book, called Crossing the Line.

Derek Sanderson’s book Crossing the Line is full of stories, and he doesn’t hold anything back.

Wait a minute, you ask, who is Derek Sanderson? Wasn’t he a third-line centre with the Boston Bruins in the late 60s/early 70s? Why should I read a book written by a guy in the bottom six of the lineup?

Because Sanderson has led one of the most colourful lives you will ever read about, that’s why.

A quick bit of background: Sanderson was a third-line centre with the Bruins, but was part of the team that won two Stanley Cups with Boston in the early 70s. He was a great personality, always giving the media a good quote. He opened successful bars, and was friends with guys such as Joe Namath.

The WHA wanted him in the league, and was so desperate to get him, they made him the highest-paid athlete in the world. Not just hockey player, but athlete.

But he lost most of the money through drinking and drugs, and some because of his lawyer. He talks about how he became an alcoholic, how he used drugs, and how he ended up becoming homeless in New York City.

Now, he’s a successful businessman, teaching athletes how to save and invest their money so they don’t wind up broke like he did.

All this is talked about in the books, and there are plenty of stories. At times, it feels like he’s name-dropping, but all the stories just show the lifestyle he had.

Anyways, the book was great. I highly recommend you read it. I’m a Habs fan, but this was easily one of the best books I’ve read.

I give the book five out of five stars.