Skip to content

Seguin expected back in North America in early November

Oct 27, 2012, 5:42 PM EDT

Tyler Seguin AP

Tyler Seguin is really starting to tear it up in Switzerland, but that won’t stop him from visiting Toronto and Boston during the first week of November, according to CSNNE.com’s Joe Haggerty.

He’s not coming back merely thanks to homesickness. Instead, he’s returning to more familiar locales because his Swiss A-League team EHC Biel will enjoy an extended break between games.

Seguin’s been on a hot streak lately, scoring 10 of his 15 points in the last four contests. Still, he told Haggerty that the fast-paced style of play is helping him stay prepared in case the lockout ends.

“The hockey part is good,” Seguin said. “The league has great speed and there are more talented players than you might expect.”

If the lockout continues through November as expected, he plans on hopping back on a plane to return to EHC Biel around Nov. 15.

The bright side? Patrick Kane is preparing to join Seguin’s team this weekend.

  1. blomfeld - Oct 27, 2012 at 6:24 PM

    Interesting timing indeed ? … especially when you look at the announced schedules of several other players in recent days. Hum … ? It was also interesting timing how USS Enterprise (CV-6) slipped out of Pearl Harbor just hours before the impending Japanese attack ?

    note: for those not in the know, the Big E was the only major ship at Pearl which could have been classified as an “asset” in the struggle that was to come …

    • revansrevenant - Oct 27, 2012 at 7:52 PM

      It’s always interesting to note that not a single US Navy carrier was at Pearl Harbor that day. The Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Hornet and Enterprise were all at sea, and the Ranger was in the Atlantic. If I was one to believe in conspiracies, I’d almost think there was some third party at work there.

      • blomfeld - Oct 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM

        Friend, it’s not really such a stretch to appreciate what really happened that day. On the morning of December 7th 1941, the US Congress and the American public were completely against getting involved in “Europe’s” war. Yet 24 hours later they were understandably outraged and couldn’t get involved with the hostilities fast enough ?

        I contend that a trap was laid that day, luring the Japanese to attack and thus propelling the US headlong into the war. Now people will argue that, saying for example … “how could US authorities at the time “knowingly” allow for 2200 military personnel go to their deaths?”. Well I would reply by saying that there’s nothing unique in that at all, if you look back at history at large. How many times on the battlefield did a general “demonstrate” on the left, while bringing a hammer blow to the enemy on the right, all the while knowing that the certain death of those poor souls on the left was “necessary” in-order to achieve overall victory and carry the day ? I imagine it’s probably happened “thousands” of times ? It’s a fact that Churchill allowed the Luftwaffe to smash Coventry in 1940 which resulted in 1500 civilian deaths, all in an effort to prevent the Germans from realizing that their codes were already cracked.
        There are times unfortunately, when unvirtuous means are justified by virtuous ends. And I contend that Pearl Harbor was sadly but one example of that.

      • stakex - Oct 28, 2012 at 4:28 AM

        Just so you guys know, in 1941 aircraft carriers were not considered the super weapons they are today. They were largely untested before WW2, and no one was sure just how effective they would be. The battleship was actually the primary naval weapon of the day… and 5 of 8 battleships at Pearl were sunk and the other three damaged. So to say that there were no major ships at Pearl during the attack is completely false.

        Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but this is one based on a modern understanding of Naval warfare… not how it was viewed and practiced in 1941. Back then, there were at least 8 major assets in the harbor, and 5 were sunk…

      • blomfeld - Oct 29, 2012 at 3:31 AM

        Stakex – On this issue you’re wrong friend ! :) By 1941 naval experts already knew that the carrier was the weapon of the future and the key to victory. This was demonstrated by the British raid at Taranto only the year prior, where three Italian battleships were sunk by carrier-based aircraft …

        “The naval Battle of Taranto took place on the night of 11–12 November 1940 during the Second World War. The Royal Navy launched the first all-aircraft ship-to-ship naval attack in history, flying a small number of obsolescent biplane torpedo bombers from an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea. The attack struck the battle fleet of the Regia Marina at anchor in the harbour of Taranto utilizing aerial torpedoes despite the shallow depth of the harbour. The devastation wrought by the British carrier-launched aircraft on the large Italian warships was the beginning of the rise of the power of naval aviation, over the big guns of battleships” …

        It’s a recorded fact that when USS Enterprise (CV-6) left Pearl on December 6th, she didn’t even want protection from the “slow & old” battle-wagons like Arizona, Maryland and California, such was their ineptness in the new era of naval warfare. Yes they were proud “capital” ships at the time, but their time at that point was already a forgone conclusion.

  2. pastabelly - Oct 27, 2012 at 9:17 PM

    I hope Seguin stays away from Kane, a bad influence on and off the ice.

  3. freneticgarfieldfan - Oct 28, 2012 at 2:52 AM

    “The hockey part is good,” – hmmm.
    Is there another part that’s not so good, or even bad? Biel/Bienne is a tiny village compared to Boston (population ~52’000). Too less pretty girls maybe?
    I’d be interested if there is something serious behind that “The hockey part is good,”.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches