The local paper published the complete list of players who have been invited to the US Olympic team tryouts - Olympic trials players plus others. Conspicuous by his absence was Tony Amonte. I wonder if Peterson and his staff decided not to invite Amonte, or if Amonte already told them he did not want to try out. Of course, Amonte is under contract to the Rangers, but his contract specifically states that if Amonte wishes to play for the US Olympic team, he will be allowed to do so. I had looked forward to the reuniting of the Commonwealth Line - Amonte-McEachern-Joe Sacco - but this may not happen. Joe Sacco, under contract to Toronto, was invited, and he spent the past season with the AHL's Newmarket Saints. McEachern also received an invite, as did BC's entire HEM line of Heinze, Emma and Marty McInnis. On an unrelated note, I was disturbed to read Bobby Hull's article on his son Brett in the Hockey News' Award Issue. Now, I have always been a fan of The Golden Jet along with the rest of hockey's great "old-timers". But in this article, Bobby gives the impression that he was a great mentor to Brett, and I thought I had heard that for a long time, Brett wanted nothing to do with his father. In a Sports Illustrated article on Brett when he played for Minnesota-Duluth, Brett tried to disassociate himself from his dad who apparently was not around much for him when he was young, through his parents' divorce and all. I specifically remember that Brett had one of his dad's old hockey cards taped to his UMD locker, but he didn't want to talk about his dad to the interviewer. But I got the impression from the THN article that Bobby was just trying to capitalize in some way on the tremendous success of his son. Did anyone get this impression? And has there been a reconciliation between the two that I haven't heard about, and which would better explain the appearance of this article? Otherwise, it just bothers me that Bobby would suddenly appear to take some credit for Brett's success when it seemed to have been in spite of his dad rather than due to him. Sorry if I'm interpreting the events incorrectly, but I would appreciate if someone could set me straight. - mike