SueNJ97

Here's a thought - if you don't have something by November - try Starbucks. I know it sounds odd, but bear with me here. I believe they still have the policy that if you work at least 20 hours per week you get health care coverage. That can be extremely important. Focus the resume on action verbs and accomplishments. If you can show how you increased efficiency, productivity, created plans, improved something, that will help you get their attention. Explain how you can help them in the interview, not how they can help you. Also, if you can show that you play well with others, i.e., work well in groups and have some leadership skills but don't mind taking direction (i.e., you have the potential to be a leader but you know you aren't going to be a VP next week, you can work effectively in a cross-functional team) that helps. They need to know they can depend on you, you will fit in (that's an absolute key - whether the entire group likes you is a really big thing, it used to be that if a majority was fine with you that was enough, now everyone has to say yes) and that you have accomplished some things already that give some indication of what you could bring to their organization.

What I'd want is some clarification. Did they release the agenda in advance and did they tell him that they refused to discuss the topics related to goaltenders because all of his proposals were rejected out-of-hand, which I believe is what kept happening. If so, was there any point in him showing up and being ignored in person?

I was working all last week and weekend. I just saw the thread. If you want, I'll get rid of the post. I thought it was recent, not last Thursday.

Actually, that's not the way it came across at all. Even after he told you it didn't matter to him how the baby cows that produced the veal were raised, you did not back off. So it does matter to you what they do in their personal lives and you can't take what you, so to speak, dish out. If you wish to join PETA and so forth, fine. You have made it clear that you don't eat certain foods, which is your right. Other people do not feel the same way. But you have just criticized them - and not held back and you can't seem to see it. When they respond in the something approaching the same manner because you slam them when they tell you they will not change their behavior because it, well, bothers you (and you are not their warden, sorry, but you aren't) you can't take it and view it as a personal attack on your views. It isn't. It is a reaction to the fact that you can't stop telling other people what to do and keep being obnoxious about it.

The time it did tend to get by him out of the zone was when he shot it into someone on the other team and it bounced back out. But yeah, on plays where the other team was trying to clear the zone, not blocking his shot, he was very good at keeping the play alive.

The only issue with his 'deflectable shot' is that it tends to deflect right back at him or out of the zone altogether. With so many more shots getting blocked these days lots of times his shot simply never makes it through. So be prepared for some games where you will be completely frustrated because you can't figure out how he could keep shooting it into the opposing player again and again. But, he is probably best decribed as a good #2 d-man...and, as people have pointed out, he probably will be for about another 3 years. Because he is on the small side but his lower body is stocky he isn't particularly effective at moving players out of position but players do find him somewhat hard to move. You'll like Brian. He'll work hard for you and except when he is shooting the puck into the opposing players he will be useful, but not a star, offensively, and he'll be extremely dependable. Considering the fact that he has been expected to carry the load here for the past few years after being able to work with Stevens and Niedermayer before he may enjoy the chance to settle back and work with Lidstrom et al.

While I'm sort of interested in how this all works out for the Rangers, just because I find the cap mechanics interesting, I really don't care what they do all that much, unless they sign an RFA (not a UFA, an RFA) to an insane contract - like the offer sheet for Vanek - it doesn't impact the remaining NJ payscale that has to be dealt with this summer all that much and their cap issues are their business.

I wonder how much he charged them to be captain. We know Billme doesn't do anything for free. I think he charges the air for breathing.

Well, now he can try to play the puck, get called for the trapezoid violation and throw a fit. We need entertainment from somewhere. Good for the Wings!!!

My guess is that negotiations have been interesting, but they will evntually get it done. I say interesting, because where where their own RFAs are concerned, under Sather, the Rangers have operated cloer to NJ's style than people realize. They have not been particularly generous, things have gotten done, but they haven't given out huge contracts because, well, they haven't faced a situation where they have had to yet. In fact, in a few cases in the last few years, Sather has pulled deals for his RFAs off the table if they haven't taken what he is offering. They haven't been particularly important players, but he simply hasn't been all that generous, and he hasn't been patient. I would guess that the Rangers probably tried to open negotiations using the Kiprusoff contract as a benchmark, I believe he's making an average of $3.33M a year, he's been to a Cup Final, won a Vezina and been nominated for another. It's what I'd do and it's not an unfair benchmark to use. He doesn't play in NY but it really doesn't matter, by his resume he's accomplished more than Lundqvist. I would also guess that didn't go over particularly well, especially after the UFA contracts were signed, even though the situation for an RFA and the situation for a UFA are completely different. In the end it may come down to the agent. Who is his agent? If the agent decides to advise Lundqvist to hold out for more $$ because the Rangers are being 'unfair' then what could have worked out easily could deteriorate into something ugly...no matter what the team and the player originally intended.

All they will do is waive Hatcher or Rathje. Really, it won't take much.