To commemorate today’s impending NHL Trade Deadline, I’m celebrating what used to be my favorite day of the year (it’s been uninteresting the past couple seasons) with some NHL hotties that have been dealt at the trade deadline over the past few seasons.
Another hockey post? Yes. Another hockey post. And it just so happens that Mr. Crabb is also a Washington Capital. Deal with it. I haven’t actively been scouting hotties lately, and Crabb sorta fell in my lap since it feels like I’m at a Caps game every other night. But he’s kinda pretty, so enjoy!
I’m sure there’s some sort of valid reason for this based on, I don’t know, a desire to keep the NHL “fresh” and “relevant”? On Tuesday reports surfaced of the proposed realignment for the league: a return to four divisions, seven or eight teams per division, new playoff format, same number of teams getting in (the top three teams in each division along with four wild cards.)
My reaction is mixed (never mind that I still haven’t watched a single NHL game this shortened season. No longer bitter, just uninterested.) I’m personally fine with the altered playoff format and the idea of a few wild card slots. The idea of four divisions, however, falls flat with me. What’s wrong with keeping it at six? I’m old enough to remember when the NHL was a four division league, but it was a much smaller league than it is today. How do you foster an effective division rivalry when your division is eight teams wide? Or does that even matter in the 2013 NHL?
This is still a proposal and subject to approval by the usual suspects. But what do you think? Does this realignment make sense to you?
Who doesn’t love a cute picture of a puppy or kitten? Who does’t love a picture of a hot hockey player? OK, how about if you combine the two? That’s a recipe for swoon. (Well, at least it is for me.) Yesterday, I stumbled (or Tumbl’d?) upon an awesome Tumblr account dedicated to this topic: Hockey Players with Pets.
Here are some of the highlights from the blog: Continue reading
Lululemon is a purveyor of women’s workout clothes. They sell men’s clothes, too, but they’ve enjoyed tremendous growth recently and seem to be the go-to spot for women runners and those who practice yoga and need $98 yoga pants.
A quick Google search will bring you all kinds of questions about the company and its former CEO (who’s now chairman), which I didn’t even know when I thought to write this post.
I did want to ruminate about whether the above window display was appropriate. Apparently “hockey butt” is a thing (researching this post was all kinds of educational) and athletic women will use it themselves to describe their physique, which can be hard to clothe and fit.
Regardless, I was just thinking that if a store known for dressing men had said this about women athletes, we’d all be pretty upset.
And I’m aware that this blog spends plenty of time ogling male athletes, so I don’t really have a leg to stand on. And as a whole, I’d say we Ladies… try hard not to force controversy, stir the pot or otherwise look for problems where their aren’t any. But I still thought it was an interesting discussion point to have.
On the completely superficial/semantics side, while hockey player’s behind might like nice in their jeans – on the ice, in their breezers, I’m pretty sure we’re not getting a good view of that. So whether or not the NHL has games is really irrelevant to my ability to check out pretty glutes, right? If fact, when they were locked out, they likely spent more time in street clothes…. you see where I’m going.
I just think that if I take a hypothetical that has female tennis players locking out and then returning to the job and Athlete’s Foot had a window display celebrating the return of tennis that mentions the short, tight skirts or tight, tennis hiney, a large to-go would ensue.
In the interest of not being hypocritical, I feel like we need to at least talk about whether or not this is a problematic display, right?
So what do you think? Am I stirring up issues that don’t exist? Or should be we be at least a little upset with this public display of objectification?