If he knew what was good for him, Spike Lee would have refused to be in this photo.
We hate to continue disparaging Cosmo's opinion regarding the NHL's hottest players, especially since the NHLers that made Tuesday's head-scratcher of a list have to be feeling pretty good about themselves right now.
Brent Burns sure does. He made sure his wife knew he'd been named to the list. "There's little post-its all over the house to make sure she knows," he told the Mercury News.
But we stand united in what we said yesterday: it's a ridiculous list. There are several reasons for this, several of which are discussed here, but let's just settle on the big one: anyone that ranks hockey's studliest studs and omits Henrik Lundqvist forfeits all authority on the matter.
But Cosmo has heard our objections, and on Wednesday, site director Korin Miller fired back in defense of the list and its great oversight.
We hear you, straight man with impeccable taste in dudes. But let's back up for a sec: We asked readers to nominate their favorite hockey players for the list and, unfortunately for Henrik, his sexy teammate Brian Boyle got more votes.
To make it fair, we only feature one player from each team. Should Claude Giroux, Zach Parise, Kris Letang, and Nicklas Backstrom be on the list? Absolutely—but their teammates got more votes.
But back to Henrik… . Don't get us wrong—it was really damn close—but Brian came out on top. Not only that, he's a serious hottie, too, whose ridiculous good looks often get overshadowed by those of his famous teammate. Let's give credit where it's due already.
Cosmo's argument is simple: they know all about Lundqvist, who made the list last year, but his omission isn't their fault. They needed representation from all 30 teams, it was based on a fan vote, and democracy led to the selection of Brian Boyle.
(Indefensible fan voting and a need for equal representation that leads to inane selections -- what is this, the NHL All-Star Game?)
Understood on all points, Cosmo. But, while I hate to further this feud and belabour the argument, it seems to me that this is a problem with your criteria. Your argument may be simple, but our response is even simpler:
If your hot hockey player list allows in any way for the omission of Henrik Lundqvist, you need to fix your list.
And finally, a word on being "straight men with impeccable taste in dudes." Cosmo, at the end of your post, you write the following: "For those of you who claim we don't know hockey, well…that's just insulting."
Fair enough. But if you bristle at the suggestion that, because you're a lifestyle magazine or whatever, you don't know hockey, we take similar umbrage to the implication that, as straight men, we shouldn't be getting so worked up over a list of good-looking dudes.
I mean, come on. We're straight, not blind.
Follow Harrison Mooney on Twitter at @HarrisonMooney