The Bruins jumped on the Dallas Stars right from the opening faceoff, with Gregory “Soupy” Campbell decking old his old nemesis Steve Ott and then two other fights starting after that. In the first four seconds of the game, there were three fights.

They did eventually end up playing hockey after that beginning to the night, and the Bruins posted a 6-3 win over the Pacific Division-leading stars.

Bang-up job done by Bruins over Stars – Fluto Shinzawa chronicles the fights and the hockey game that followed them. DJ Bean has the Bruins starting their toughest stretch of the season strongly.

Bruins stand up during fight night at the Garden – Joe Haggerty says that the Bruins play their best hockey when someone takes a poke at them. Stephen Harris adds that this Bruins team seems to create momentum off of fights.

Bruins, Stars stir up old memories – Mick Colageo has this one stirring up memories of a Bruins/Stars game from 30 years ago.

Bergeron back in starring role – Michael Vega has Patrice Bergeron continuing his hot play with a pair of goals in the first period.

Daniel Paille likely heading to Rule 48 suspension – Steve Conroy’s notebook has one Bruins likely to hear from the league office today. The Globe notebook by Fluto Shinzawa has more on the Paille hit. The CSNNE notes from Joe Haggerty have Marc Savard set to undergo tests in Boston today.

Celtics connect four stars – Mark Murphy has the Celtics “Big Four” being named All-Star reserves, and Doc Rivers’ plan to play them all together in the game. Murphy’s  notebook has Delonte West getting closer to a return.

The Rondo Paradox – Interesting column on RealGM.

Developing opportunity for Sox catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia – Alex Speier has a look at the Red Sox work with the young catcher in the offseason as they prepare him to be the starter in 2011.

With David Ortiz, much left to be desired – Scott Lauber says that the DH’s struggles against lefties might be a concern for Terry Francona.

The two sides of the Sox – Jim Donaldson looks at the Red Sox as both half-empty and half-full.

10 Questions — No. 9: How key is Dice-K? – Gordon Edes looks at the importance of Daisuke Matsuzaka as the fifth starter.

Zoned in on each other – Greg A Bedard with a worthy feature on the matchup between defensive minds – and former roommates – Dom Capers and Dick LeBeau.

Goodell has only himself to blame for feeling ‘deceived’ – Kirk Minihane says that if the Commissioner really felt so deceived, he should’ve done something before now.

Fox has its team ready for climactic Sunday – If you didn’t hate Joe Buck with the intensity of 10,000 white-hot burning suns prior to now, after reading Chad Finn’s media colum today you surely will.

Fox crew will miss Super lure of Pats – Bill Doyle has more from Buck and Troy Aikman.

Guess who:

Logan Mankins is my favorite Patriot. He’s the first guy to stand up to the Krafts since Mike Vrabel.

Need more?

Goodell to SI’s Peter King on Belichick’s Spygate non-response: “He went out and stonewalled the press. I feel like I was deceived.’’ Welcome to our world, Roger.

Got it now? (The answer is in the comments section – if you really can’t figure it out.)


24 thoughts on “Bruins Fight Off Stars For 6-3 Win

  1. It's Shaughnessy, of course. That the Krafts were mentioned in the first quote, and not Belichick should've given it away immediately. The guy doesn't even try to hide his grudge with the Kraft family any more.


  2. Bruce,

    Pardon me.

    Not up to speed on the particulars – was Mankins still under contract when he held out?

    If so, in Dan's eyes not honoring your contract is "standing up".

    When Manny Ramirez does it he's a quitter. (not excusing what Manny did).


      1. It's a terrible point. Mankins WAS NOT under contract. He was a restricted free agent and the Patriots gave him a tender. He did not sign it, therefore had no deal and no obligation to be in camp or any other team activities until he signed. The NFL CBA prevented him from signing with other teams, but he was not under contract.


        1. If a RFA is tendered a contract by his team, he is automatically considered to be under contract for the next season. There's no need to sign anything. Please read up on your CBA.

          EDIT: Expanded for more complete explanation —

          Mankins was a RFA who was tendered a qualifiying offer by his current team. Therefore, if no other team offers him a contract during the CBA-designated period for doing so, his rights revert unconditionally to his current team at the tendered contract. He doesn't have to report, and if he doesn't report he doesn't get paid or get credited service time, but he's considered to be under contract to his original team.


      2. Actually, Mankins absolutely was NOT under contract. The Pats had offered him a tender (and so retained near-exclusive rights to him) but he did not sign it until the day he reported. So he was not holding out (and among other things could not be fined for holding out).


    1. Mankins was not under contract. The Pats held his rights, but his contract had expired and he was not officially signed to a new one.


      1. See above. He was a RFA who was tendered a contract for the next season. Therefore, he was considered to be signed for all NFL purposes as of the date of the tender. That's how the CBA works. He doesn't have to show up — and if he doesn't show up, he doesn't get paid — but he's considered under contract for CBA purposes.


        1. exactly. for CBA purposes. But for moral, manly, and comparison to Manny Ramirez purposes, he was not. They can offer him a contract all he wants, but Mankins is not welshing on his side of the bargain if he doesn't sign it. That was the so called "great point" of the original poster and it's patently false.


  3. That's why Dan is the "bravest columnist" in town: he doesn't hold 15-year grudges against people or anything like that.



  4. Ha!

    It just helps support the belief that Coach of the Year Belichick is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers, and Dan is playing Tic-Tac-Toe and complaining that he never gets to go first.

    I haven't read much of Dan's rubbish in maybe a year and I still guessed it.



  5. I think there is a darker reason for "Irish" Danny's hatred of the Krafts. Notice how a lot of his ire is focused on how "cheap" the Krafts are by repeating the big lie that the Pats have one of the lowest payrolls in the league, even after the truth is proven that they spend with the best of them in the league? In the pastI have read articles from Shaughnessy accusing the Jacobs of the exact same affliction – cheapness. I wonder what the Krafts and Jacobs have in common, besides owning professional teams…


    1. Denverwally,
      Really? You really want to go there with your passive-aggresive accusations? I dislike Shank's "journalism" as much as anyone, but your innuendo is uncalled for. Either call the guy out for slandering the Krafts and the Jacobs for what they have in "common", or zip it. Your post is vile anti-Semitism.


    2. Play the anti-semite card when all else fails. I guess Irish Catholics are Jew haters by birth,right "Wally". "Anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the elite" as the old saying goes, your true colors are exposed. By the way, the Philo-Semitic Boston Globe would have fired him YEARS AGO if they suspected he was truly what you accuse him of…you GUTLESS COWARD.


  6. Why anyone even bothers to read what Shank is writing is beyond me. When someone continues to repeat a lie to make it true, I believe that person is headed to committing libel. Maybe people should start a rumor that he's a child molester and continue to run with it until he cries.


    1. Well, why don't YOU start that rumor, big man? Oh yeah…that little thing known as LIBEL. And seeing you call him "Shank" is an indicator that you listen to the Big Zero. So you're a gutless coward and a shut in.


Comments are closed.