Despite Hype, History’s “Gettysburg” Fails to Deliver

While I applaud the filmmakers of Gettysburg for finally giving us an accurate depiction of Civil War violence, with plenty of blood, guts, and limbs flying everywhere, I cannot help but feel that the audience was deprived of highly important information, especially if someone was watching this who did not know much about the most important battle in our nation’s most important struggle. For a documentary that came with so much promise and hype, it ultimately failed to deliver, almost mocking the New York Post’s review from this morning that said this documentary “will change the way TV documentaries are made from now on.” If by change, they meant including all of the facts next time, then by all means they are correct.

Despite my disappointment, this was not the worst documentary the History Channel has ever produced (can anything rival Life After People?). It began at such a high level, in tackling an often shunned portion of the battle, which is the Railroad Cut on the first day of the fighting. The combat scenes were hard-hitting and intense, and as I settled down on the couch, I had a smile on my face that this was finally going to be that one Civil War film that was both fair and accurate, yet grizzly in showing the horrors of war, not the Lost Cause fantasy world that some Southern Apologists feel to this day. This foreshadowing was only partially fulfilled. Bullets tore through bodies, cannon balls severed limbs, and shrapnel knocked down rows of lined soldiers. But at the same time, information crucial to understanding this battle at its full capacity was left out. Whether or not this was intentional is beyond me, but had it been included, I would be singing songs of praise right now.

This is not a nitpick here, folks. The information left out includes not one single mention of McPherson’s Ridge, Devil’s Den, or Little Round top, and not one utterance of the names John Buford, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (who saved the Union Army’s flank with a daring bayonet charge), John Bell Hood, Lewis Armistead, Richard Garnett, James Kemper, Isaac Trimble, Lafayette McClaws, E. Porter Alexander, J.E.B Stuart, or Winfield Scott Hancock. Other crucial players, such as George Pickett and James Longstreet were mentioned in passing, only once, with them not even being characterized as part of the docudrama aspect of this film. How any motion picture relating to the entire Civil War, let alone this battle, can be made without these men and locations being focused on is incredible.

The one thing I did notice, however, was that the parts of the battle shown in this film (Pickett’s Charge aside) were not depicted at all in Ron Maxwell’s 1993 feature film Gettysburg. While that one drew upon the fighting in the three aforementioned locations, this newer film was about the first day’s fighting in the town, along the Railroad Cut, and Culp’s Hill. At first, I thought that the filmmakers did not want to show anything that was already done, but then I thought that this was a documentary—it is supposed to include everything. Now, for someone who wants to get a perfect picture of what the battle of Gettysburg was really all about, they will have to watch this film along with a nearly five-hour Maxwell version. Spending seven hours viewing films may turn more people off of the Civil War than inspire.

To further reinforce what was left out, there was not even a mention of the fighting at the Peach Orchard and the Wheat field. One could basically argue that this film left out more about the battle than in included, and that is very sad, because it kick’s off the highly anticipated “Civil War Week” on History in a bad way. Tomorrow night’s special is Lee and Grant, and I am almost afraid to watch it.

In getting to the actual information about the parts that were represented, the narrator went out of his way to mention slavery as being the sole cause of the Confederacy’s fighting every chance he could. When profiling William Barksdale, his ownership of 40 slaves was cast into the spotlight, as was a Confederate doctor’s earlier in the program. Another aspect that I would like to critique, regarding a battle scene, was Pickett’s Charge. While ignoring every general present with the exception of Brigadier General Joe Davis, who apparently led the charge all by himself,  it showed a group of about ten men marching near the base of a mountain. In reality, the charge comprised of 12,000 men marching on rolling farmland, with no mountain in sight, and no trees except for where the Confederate army deployed from. I understand that they could not use thousands of extras for this small scene, but how about some CGI figures that littered the screen in cheesy overhead shots as troops closed in at the stonewall?

One last item that I question, was the decision the filmmaker’s made to spend a little more than five minutes on the Confederate’s “Rebel Yell”. What was in real life, a shriek to inflict intimidation and fear into the hearts of enemies, was shown in this movie as a bunch of hillbillies with no teeth in their mouth cackling out turkey gobbles. I sat in disbelief that human beings could even make such an atrocious attempt at trying to get it right. While the closeups of rotting teeth and gums were accurate, I felt myself more prepared for Thanksgiving dinner than waiting behind an entrenchment for an enemy to charge and try to kill me. If you DVR’d this special, please hit fast-forward when you get to this part. Die-hard Civil War buffs and historians can just hit delete when you get to the menu.

All was not lost in this film, however. The visual effects and action scenes were top-notch, made even better by a glorious high-definition television. Had everything I mentioned been included, then this would have been a masterpiece. Instead, it slides down the mounting slippery slope of Civil War related movies and television specials that “could have been”. I will give this a rating of 4 out of 10, and make the insignificant suggestion that this should have been at least a two-part series, so that everything could have been covered. There was a lot that was right with this program visually, but even more that was wrong on the fact-side, and I cannot let that slide.

Remembering the Fallen: What is Memorial Day?

What is Memorial Day? A time for a three-day weekend, barbecues, and sales at stores and car dealerships. Unfortunately, ask almost anyone what they will be doing on that day, and they will respond with one of those three things, because it is the most important to them. However, this holiday was not always like that—there once was a time where people remembered the soldiers that served in the Armed Forces of the United States, whether they lived through combat or died fighting, and used the day as a chance to say “Thank You”. Today, this occasion has been relegated to the decision of whether you want hot dogs or hamburgers for lunch, and not about the millions upon millions that have fought for our Flag all over the world.

War is a scourge, and so is what we have become as a nation. We are self-absorbed and misinformed, and government censorship has a lot to do with it. Below is one of the most famous photographs taken during the Civil war, where more than 600,000 Americans lost their lives. It is of a Rebel sharpshooter, killed in the Devil’s Den portion of the Gettysburg battlefield. We can see his face, clearly, and we can see that he is lifeless—his loved ones will never hold him in their arms again. Alexander Gardner took this photograph in 1863 and has only in the last several years come under scrutiny, because the body presented here was not found in this location. He was killed somewhere else and dragged there for dramatic effect, his rifle perched perfectly against the rock barricade. My question is, what does it matter? This young man is dead, and he is not coming back. Pictures like these shocked the nation when they were first exhibited, because people saw, for the first time, what war was all about: killing. The romance was gone, the innocence was lost.

Now, a hundred and fifty years later, what photographs do we see? Where are pictures of our soldiers today, in the Middle East, broken and bloodied by shrapnel, bullets, and bombs? Why do we not see pictures of their dead bodies? The American government does not think that we as a people can handle it, but they will not tell us that. They will hide behind “having respect for the dead” as their reason. If I was a soldier, killed or severely wounded in action, I would want my picture taken, and shown to everyone who wants to go to war. The politicians and fear mongers who use patriotism as an excuse for invading a foreign country should all be exposed to the horrors that a simple photograph can hold. Of course, what they convey still cannot tell us about who they were as people. These men, then and today, are not numbers. Type in “Civil War Dead” in Google, and ask yourself, who are they? Where did they come from? Did they have family? What were their interests and hobbies? Did their family ever learn of their fate?

When discussing this, I am drawn to a particular piece of dialogue from Gods and Generals, where Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain delivers a powerful soliloquy to his brother Tom, shortly after a disastrous Union defeat at Fredericksburg. An excerpt of it goes as follows:

“Come outside, I want to show you something. All these thousands of men, many of them not much more than boys: each one of them some mother’s son, some sister’s brother, some daughter’s father. Each one of them a whole person loved and cherished in some home far away. Many of them will never return. An army is power. It’s entire purpose is to coerce others. Now, this kind of power cannot be used carelessly or recklessly, this kind of power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, then it must be an end that justifies the cost.”

We live our lives in a state of utopia here in America, with our heads high above the clouds. Our newscasts are either biased towards an ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal point of view and agenda. Politics, politics, politics  is all it is, which hides the truth from us. Rarely do we even see pictures of wooden caskets, neatly lined on a runway, draped in American flags. As sobering as those shots are, they are not nearly enough to get across true sadness. Based on personal experience in teaching children ages 10-14 over the last two years, I can honestly say that our youth in America has no idea about what war is, as well as what it means to have respect for others, and a bunch of other things that you could take a stab at for yourself (and by all means, blame the parents). I am going to leave my personal views about what I think of our war out, because this is not the time or the place, but I remember in one class, I asked my 7th graders the very simple question of, “Why are we fighting over in the Middle East right now?” Out of seventeen children present, not one person offered up a response.

Men and women are dying or getting wounded every single day our army is over there, and no one seems to care, no one of course except their family, which waits with an anxious horror at the day they will get a letter, phone call, or visit saying that their child is dead, or had to have an arm or leg amputated. Newscasts do not even report casualty figures any more—at least they did that in the “Conflict” (or is it a “Police Action” now?) known as Vietnam. It truly is sickening, that we have a fighting force of thousands, and we only wait until someone we know, or a friend of a friend gets killed or wounded, that we start to care.

For the last year, I have immersed myself in the study of the Civil War, as most of you know already if you read this blog regularly. I can honestly say that I am a changed man because of it. It has taught me that no good can ever come of killing one another, but at the same time, it has taught me to have nothing but the utmost respect for those that do fight. While I have nothing but disgust and abhorrence for the politicians and war mongers who send our people to foreign lands to make war, one cannot direct that anger at the soldiers themselves. They are simply doing their duty, and fighting for the country that they love.

Then there is the commercialization factor. Just like everything else, including once religious holidays, businesses have to try to make a buck. Why a day honoring dead soldiers prompts store sales and barbecues is beyond me. Where did it all begin? The graphic above is something I made this afternoon, after scouring the internet looking for how stores are “remembering” our dead soldiers. This is what we have become, and unfortunately, there is no turning back. I cannot say that I will be doing anything spectacular in remembrance tomorrow, because I am not. It will most likely be a normal day, with a workout in the morning and some online college history coursework needing to get done, but I will be watching History International tomorrow afternoon, which offers a marathon of Civil War documentaries, leading up to the highly anticipated premiere of its sister network History Channel’s Ridley Scott-produced docudrama Gettysburg. In not speaking for anyone else, this is the best way for me to honor the fallen.

So I guess my message is this: to the American people, take some time to reflect on those that have fallen, and not just pig out and crack open a beer on your back patio. And to our government, why don’t you show us some photographs? Get permission from their families if you have to; just do the right thing. Perhaps if our citizens saw a picture of a twenty year old soldier, whose body was cut in half by a piece of shrapnel, they would choose to remember instead of party on Memorial Day.

San Francisco Giants: Help Wanted!

Just like last season, the San Francisco Giants are in dire need for offensive help, but unlike last season, it is injuries that is the cause. With catcher Buster Posey injured this week in a play that will likely end his season, he becomes just the latest casualty in an incredibly unlucky 2011 season. Currently on the disabled list sit the aforementioned Posey, Pablo Sandoval, who actually seemed to be recovering from his offensive doldrums last season, Mark DeRosa, role player Mike Fontenot, and speedster Darren Ford. Aubrey Huff, who was the team’s all-around leader last season, bats a measly .223, while newcomer Miguel Tejada brings an atrocious .212 batting average to the table (this really gets put into perspective when you note that pitcher Ryan Vogelsong is actually batting .308). Power-hitter Pat Burrell leads the team with an astounding five homeruns, tied with Sandoval who has been out for nearly thirty games. At the same time, Freddy Sanchez tops out the team in hitting, with a .298 average. In other words, somebody help!

Sandoval should be set to return in a couple of weeks, but the Giants are going to need more than that. While the pitching is still holding strong, helping the Giants astoundingly remain in first place, while the offense bats .240 and is second-to-last in the National League in runs scored, the Giants need to make a trade to bring in some offense. One cannot be picky here; just get someone. There have been many names thrown around, ranging from Jose Reyes to Ivan Rodriguez. The Giants are allowed to be desperate here, but it does not mean they have to be. Just listen to WFAN in New York and you will hear some of the dumbest calls ever made to the station. Fans of the Yankees and Mets are smelling blood in the water, and see that if the Giants are so hard up for offense, they must be willing to trade pitching. Sophomore Madison Bumgarner is the name that nearly every caller wants, and I have heard proposals such as Reyes for Bumgarner, and even Yankee fans getting in there, wanting to give the Giants their top catching prospect Jesus Montero for Jonathon Sanchez. New Yorkers always want to think they can get a Filet Mignon for the price of a Morning Star boca burger, but come one now!

One caller even told Joe Benigno and Evan Roberts, who host a midday show on WFAN, an asinine proposal of Josh Thole for Bumgarner, to which Benigno responded, “Yeah, sure! Give us Sanchez too!” It really is quite funny, because everyone seems to be enamored with the Giants from coast to cost. Mike Francesa has even had to dismiss disillusioned callers and their fantasy-like wishes.

The Giants will not trade Madison Bumgarner or Jonathon Sanchez. Nor will they trade Tim Lincecum for Jorge Posada. Anyone that thinks a deal involving those three makes sense, get your head out of your behind. Desperation never worked in anyone’s favor, except the trading partner that exploits it. If the only way the Giants can get help is by trading a pitcher, than I would rather stay the course and miss the playoffs. Saving this season is not worth jeopardizing the next three. If the Mets want to get rid of Reyes so bad, then I would offer Miguel Tejada and a prospect: take it or leave it. The Mets would save a tremendous amount of money while the Giants would not be overpaying for a rental. That helps out the infield, but then the Giants need to fix their catcher dilemma. Eli Whiteside is a good backup, but by no means is he an everyday player. The Giants have contacted the Nationals regarding 39-year old Ivan Rodriguez (.211, 2 Hrs, 14 RBI), which would be a decent stop-gap for this season. I would also inquire about Jorge Posada on the Yankees, whose .174 batting average would fit right in.

The disgruntled catcher has caused Yankee fans to forget his past greatness and jump on the What-Have-You-Done-For-Me-Lately bandwagon. The Yankees could send him to San Francisco for a prospect or two and never see him again. There, Posada can get back to actually catching (he does not seem to love the designated hitter position) and help the Giants’ young pitching staff. It could serve as a reclamation project of sorts, that they tried, and succeeded, with Pat Burrell who was also unhappy DHing and struggling with the Tampa Bay Rays early last season. His career was thought to be over too, and look how that turned out for the Giants in the long run.

Joe’s Angle: The New York Rangers’ Off-Season Plan

Will the Rangers be courting Jamie Langenbrunner for help this summer?

Heading into this off-season, the New York Rangers find themselves in quite good shape when compared to the last few summers. The Rangers must establish a true first line in order to justify their investment in Marian Gaborik, whose disappointing 2010/11 campaign could have been attributed to injuries and lack of chemistry with players around him. He will, and must, look to regain his form found in the previous seasons.

Brad Richards is the only marquee free agent on the market when it comes to offensive players. Richards, 31, is the number one center the Rangers need if they would like to take their development one step further. The mentality of the Rangers’ youth movement is nice, but they need top line talent to win. Unfortunately, this top line talent does not exist anywhere in the organization outside of Marian Gaborik. Pairing Richards with Gaborik and Wojtek Wolski would give the Rangers a top line. Wolski is a question mark on that line, but given he gels with talented players we could see him have a breakout year.

The Rangers have two players in Chris Drury and Sean Avery who are both primed for buyouts. The Rangers cannot endure one additional season while carrying Drury’s 7+ million cap hit. They need to spend their money elsewhere in order to improve the club. Drury’s 3.7 million buyout hit will give them additional flexibility. When it comes to doghouse player Sean Avery, it does not make sense for the team to keep him around, unless he can reclaim past success, which is doubtful. Avery’s role with the Rangers has seemed to disappear and he has turned into more of a liability than anything else on the ice. Cutting his salary cap hit almost in half will give the Rangers an additional $1 million in spending money. In order to bypass buyout ramifications, the Rangers could also send Avery salary to Hartford, removing it entirely from the cap as well.

When it comes to other players on the free agent market, there is only one forward I would not steer clear of. Jamie Langenbrunner is a forward, who if used in a 3rd line role, could prove valuable to the club. The Rangers should take a long look at Langenbrunner. Despite his age, a team needs a few veterans sprinkled in if they want to find any type of success. Jan Hejda, a veteran defenseman from Columbus, can also help the Rangers if paired with youngster Micheal Del Zotto. The Rangers have had interest in bringing Hejda in for several years via trade with the Blue Jackets, but were never able to make a sensible deal. Now that Hejda is a UFA, a one or two year deal may make sense.

Stay: Anisimov, Boyle, Callahan, Christensen, Dubinsky, Fedotenko, Gaborik, Prust, Stepan, Wolski, Eminger,Girardi, McDonagh, Sauer, Staal, Biron, Lundqvist

Go: Avery, Drury, Prospal, Gilroy, McCabe

Your 2011-2012 New York Rangers

Salaries calculated through CapGeek and are noted in parenthesis next to the player’s name.

1st line: Marian Gaborik ($7.500m)- Brad Richards ($6.750m)– Wojtek Wolski ($3.800m)
2nd line: Ryan Callahan ($3.975m)- Derek Stepan ($0.875m)- Brandon Dubinsky ($3.975m)
3rd line: Jamie Langenbrunner ($2.300m)– Artem Anisimov ($1.350m)- Mats Zuccarello ($1.750m)
4th line: Brandon Prust ($0.800m)- Brian Boyle ($1.225m)-  Ruslan Fedotenko ($1.250m)
Scratches: Erik Christensen ($0.925m) and Chris Drury ($3.716m)

1st pairing: Marc Staal ($3.975m)- Daniel Girardi ($3.325m)
2nd pairing: Ryan McDonagh ($1.300m)- Mike Sauer ($1.505m)
3rd pairing: Jan Hejda ($2.500m)- Michael Del Zotto ($1.087m)
Scratch: Steve Eminger ($0.650m)

Starting: Henrik Lundqvist ($6.875m)
Backup: Martin Biron ($0.875m)

Salary Cap: $62,500,000
Cap Payroll: $62,284,167
Bonuses: $1,487,500
Cap Space (23-man roster): $215,833

[Note from Greg Caggiano] Even though Joe and I disagree about Brad Richards, I must say this looks like a decent line-up, or at least more so than last season’s. The three free agent moves he has made here are realistic and certainly not out of the question, though fans may be wary in bringing in another ex-Devil in Langenbrunner. But out of all three moves, I like that one the best. The players that he let go I agree with, though I would have added Christensen to the list.

Off Into the Sunset: The Honorable Brian Rafalski Calls It Quits

Sorry I’m a few days late on this, but I did not read about it until this afternoon…

I have long said that the most important part of a star player’s career is not the stats—nor is it the paycheck, the amount of championship rings, or any material item such as that. The most important part is knowing when to retire, recognizing when the ship is going to sail and not hanging around so long that you miss it. Two days ago, Detroit Red Wings’ defenseman Brian Rafalski announced his retirement. The 38 year-old defenseman basically stunned the hockey world with his bit of news, because just like that other veteran defenseman playing in Motown, he showed absolutely no signs of slowing down.

Since signing with Detroit in 2007, Rafalski has put up 55, 59, 42, and 48 points respectively, all while in his mid-thirties, with the game growing faster every single season. What is even more shocking about this decision is the fact that he still had one year remaining on a contract that would have paid him $6 million more this coming season. Rafalski cites that he wants a deeper commitment to his family and those close to him for why he is leaving. One cannot help but respect that reasoning, because I do not think you would see it in any other sport. Hats off to Brian Rafalski for putting money aside and going with his gut instinct on this—if only more players followed in his footsteps.

The Red Wings will now be down a puck-moving defenseman, which would make me think that ole Niklas Lidstrom will be back for a 20th season in the National Hockey League. The 41 year-old (it must be the water out there in Detroit) has seemed to get better with age, and certainly would not be a detriment to his team by sticking around another season, but I do not watch the Red Wings often enough to comment further.

So once again, kudos and congratulations to Mr. Rafalski for an outstanding career that spanned 11 seasons, and saw him put up 79 goals and 436 assists in 833 games. He also won three Stanley Cups (two with the New Jersey Devils), and played in the finals five times. Enjoy your retirement!

New York Rangers: Is Brad Richards the Answer?

Christmas is only 35 days away, and fans of the New York Rangers have asked Santa Claus for Brad Richards. The Blueshirts barely snuck into the playoffs this season, mainly due to their anemic offense that was always a two periods late and a goal short. They rode the back of goaltender Henrik Lundqvist and a youthful defense for as long as they could, but it was not nearly enough. The team needed goals, plain and simple, or they needed passes going to someone who could get them goals, namely Marian Gab0rik, who disappeared more times than planes have gone down in the Bermuda Triangle.

Blame was placed on the offense in two directions: 1) Marian Gaborik was merely a flash in the pan, who came to Broadway, put up a 40+ goal season, got comfortable, and then went away, content with the salary he was given. He was no longer a big game player, no longer the superstar the Rangers gave a five-year/$37.5 million contract to in 2009. 2) Gaborik did not lose any skill himself, but rather, it was the fault of his teammates who could not get him the puck. Erik Christensen, Brandon Dubinsky, Vinny Prospal, and others whose names elude me at the present time all were blamed for not being a good enough set-up man.

Either way, Gaborik never had a star center in Minnesota (unless you think Pierre-Marc Bouchard is worth writing home about) but that did not stop him from putting up 42 goals in 07/08 and four other 30-goal seasons, all while never playing a full 82 games. So now, everyone is clamoring for Dallas Stars’ free agent center Brad Richards. He is going to be the answer and savior all in one shot. Why? I don’t know, you tell me.

This is where Rangers fans earn their paycheck, by going around the league every summer and seeing what players out there will instantly come here and save the day. Every season it is always a center, and while I agree that the Rangers desperately need a center (just like Christensen desperately needs a prescription for Cymbalta), I also want to make note of the high-priced free agents the Rangers have brought in over the years. Unless you are a fan of the way Chris Drury, Scott Gomez, and Wade Redden worked out, you will agree that when the Rangers throw the checkbook at somebody for how well they played in the past, it ultimately fails.

Brad Richards is a fantastic talent, don’t get me wrong. He has put up 91 points twice (Gomez put up 84 once) and has registered more than 40 assists in all but one season, which was when he was injured in 08/09. But why all of a sudden is he going to click with Gaborik and put up those points here in New York? Rangers fans have this Utopian idea in their heads more than half the time, one that includes severely over-rating our homegrown players and then automatically assuming every free agent in the world wants to play here. To go on a tangent for a second, Brandon Dubinsky and Ryan Callahan will be overpaid this summer, and neither will be worth the paycheck—trust me on that. But will you take off the blinders and see it too? There is not a player in this franchise (you read correctly, not one player) who should be considered untouchable in my eyes.

Now we must look at what price Richards can be had for. He clearly deserves between $6 and 7 million, easy. The Rangers currently have just over $18 million in cap space, with Dubinsky, Callahan, Brian Boyle, Artem Anisimov, Matt Gilroy, and Michael Sauer all restricted free agents. With those players eating up well over half of that, the Rangers will then need to replace Alex Frolov, whose money thankfully comes off the books, and then must reconsider bringing one (or none) of the pair of Ruslan Fedotenko and Vinny Prospal back—they should not re-sign both. Then there are defensemen Bryan McCabe and Steve Eminger also hitting free agency, and while I like McCabe’s potential as a leader and powerplay catalyst, unless he takes around $2 million for a one-year deal, I would not bring him back. As for Eminger, I am still on the fence about whether he should be brought back, but I am inclined to think no. So now where is this money for Richards going to come from, with most of it tied up in signing the Rangers’ own players? The logical answer would be to summon the ghost of Harry Houdini and make Chris Drury disappear (or they could just banish him to the minors or buy him out), or even find a way to trade Marian Gaborik, but something tells me that would defeat the purpose of signing Brad Richards, won’t it?

What Glen Sather and the Rangers have to do is get creative though trades, which is where the GM excels anyway. I would like to see what the return could be for a Gaborik deal, and although fans would worry about dealing him, if the Rangers can finish in 8th place and have a mediocre offense with him, they can finish in 8th place and have a mediocre offense without him. The Rangers must work the phones here, and find a way to get Gaborik’s contract off the books, and get some high to medium level talent in return, and maybe even some draft picks. With that money, perhaps they can then do what everyone really wants to see, and that is poach Zach Parise from the New Jersey Devils. But I will attach a disclaimer to that: do you really see Sather doing that to his old crony Lou Lamoriello? I don’t think so.

So, the answer to the question I initially asked is “No”, Brad Richards is not the answer. Sure he would be part of it, but unless the Rangers can solve all of it, I would not tie up a large amount of money like that in a 31-year old whose best days are truly behind him. I am tired of seeing the Rangers gamble with enormous contracts, thinking they are a quick fix when all they do is handicap the team further down the road. The Rangers need a center alright, but I would rather give Michal Handzus one year at $2.5 million and throw him next to Gaborik than lock up Richards for five to six years. The free agent market is drier than the Sahara Desert when it comes to centers this summer, but that doesn’t mean the Rangers need to settle for someone just because nobody else is there.

Think I’m joking about the laughably boring free agent market this year? Just click here to see for yourself.

“Gods and Generals” Fans: Today is Your Day!

Well everyone, the day we have all waited eight years for has finally arrived. I would just like to say that it has been a pleasure writing for you in these last few months, and I hope you will continue to frequent this blog as I will try to keep the Civil War related articles coming. In the mean time, I invite all of you to post your complete reviews in the comment section of this article. And don’t forget to answer these questions:

  1. What time in the morning did you wake up?
  2. Did you skip work or cut class?
  3. How many people did you knock down on your way to the film section?

Okay, so maybe I’m kidding, or at least I hope so, but I’m sure there will be some funny stories to go along with these. In case you have not already read them, or were just waiting because you did not want the added footage spoiled, please check out my reviews of both the Gods and Generals Extended Director’s Cut and the Gettysburg Director’s Cut.

Happy viewing!