Gollumpus

Jan Hlavac. regards, G.

Well, now the tough part of the game comes up. Scoring at least two more runs, while not letting them get any more. regards, G.

Yeah, I was surprised to see that they still had their 1st for this year. Yeah, but people around here are anticipating a big payoff for just one year of Horvat and/or Miller. Now, 2 years of Wilson isn't as good as perhaps 4 years of Wilson (as part of a package), but if he plays well then perhaps he could be flipped to someone else making a playoff run. regards, G.

Nope. Neither have I ever had a driver's license, nor have I ever (officially) driven a car on the roads and highways. I've managed to pretty much live where things are within a reasonable walking distance, or there is public transit. It is something which has kept my cost of living kinda' low over the decades. And since I'm pretty low key., spending a 1/2 hour (or longer) on a bus is/was an opportunity to read a couple of chapters of a book (if I was by myself), or to talk to some friends if I was with a group. I suppose the biggest drawback in my time of not owning a car is that it made going to drive-in movies a bit awkward.... regards, G.

regards, G.

regards, G.

0 for 2 this year. My favorite NHL team didn't make the playoffs (the Canucks). My favorite NBA team lost inthte finals (the Celtics). This being said, I kinda' like Golden State, so it wasn't a complete loss. Waiting to hear how the Giants and the Cowboys do this year.... regards, G.

Maybe from your cousin's sister's brother? It's good to distance yourself from these sorts of things... regards, G.

Not sure that that could happen, however, I think there might be a couple of things which could hinder this circumvention: 1.) Only a percentage of the contract's value could be traded once, say 50%, while the remaining amount stays with the original team and cannot be further divided in additional trades. 2.) If traded, the contract could be ruled violated/terminated by the insurance company, and they could refuse to provide any further payouts. My meaning here is that the original deal could be viewed as being with the original team (through the NHL). The contract/player could be traded if the player (the asset) is active, but once he is on LITR then the deal becomes stuck with the original signing team. The player was their asset, and the compensation is paid out to that team and that team only. If you have a car that is totalled, and ICBC pays you for it, you can't sell/trade that vehicle to another person (I'm assuming that this is how it works - never owned a car :)). regards, G.

I'm not opposed to drafting BPA, if your choices are a guy who is supposed to be a generational talent forward, and a merely very, very, very good d-man, then yeah, it makes sense to go BPA, and hope that your guy isn't a Yakupov, and the other guy doesn't develop into a Hedman. If we're talking negligible differences in player values vs organizational need, then the choice becomes unclear for me. If a team is drafting in the middle of the pack, and has a number of good wingers, and the BPA (by a small margin) is a winger, and the second ranked BPA is a RD (a positional need), then why not take the d-man? The advantage you'd be able to acquire (if any) would likely be so small that the bother just wouldn't matter. While this is all speculative, I suspect that the return for such a "150" player would be so minimal that you may as well have drafted the "147" in the first place. What kind of asset would be talking about, so that we have a value for "3" (or whatever the difference would be between these two players? And off the top of your head, are there any examples that come to mind where a team drafted one prospect, and then traded him to another team in order to fill a positional need which they could have filled only a year or two earlier? Is there a particular trade which we could use as an example, for discussion purposes? I don't believe the Dubois/Laine trade serves the purpose of being an example, as both of the main guys involved in the trade were disgruntled and wanted out of their original team. *The Jets traded the 2016 2nd OA and a 2015 25th OA, for the 2016 3rd OA, who they could have drafted in the first place. * There's also the possibility that you can't re-coup the value of your "150" in such a trade and have to take on a guy who is lesser in value than the RD you might have picked. (Yes, you could also luck out and get far more value. I suspect that the lesser return would be the more likely result.) Late. Sleepy. Apologies for any incomplete thoughts. TL;DR - drafting is situational, and should be governed by more than just BPA. regards, G.

I was going more for Carson, but you're in the same ballpark. regards, G.

Interesting. Each of the three guys are coming off of career high seasons in goal scoring. regards, G.

I heard that this Lazar guy is fast. (*How fast is he?") He's so fast that you'd say he played for the Leafs when he was skating towards you, but that he played for Montreal if he got past you........ regards, G.

True, but wouldn't it be nice to have him as a 3rd center, not as a "3C"? I'd like Horvat, Miller and Pettersson each centering a line for approximately 18 minutes per game. The 4th line would get 6 minutes to rock and rol (more or less)l. There would also be room for variation based on penalties, who is hot and who isn't, game situations and so on. regards, G.

Looking at some of the suggested cap hits for these two guys (Copp and Mikheyev), the Canucks should have no problem trading Pearson. He gives similar point production value for perhaps a couple of million less. regards, G.

Yup, and I took your comments as such. regards, G.

regards, G.

The guy who put the MV out got the date wrong. regards, G.

Because he sounds fast? regards, G.

In terms of cost to sign these guys, I suspect that Copp will cost the most, followed by Mikheyev. Lazar might be the only one who the Canucks could afford (depending on how much cap gets moved). I do like the idea of all three in that they seem to be very versatile as to where they can play. regards, G.

My comment was not meant to be pro or con.... regards, G.

Well, at least it gives you something to talk about.... regards, G.

I am a river to my people.... regards, G.

I was mucking around in the Metal section of WN, and one of the suggested videos from YouTube by a group called tricot. They are a "math rock". band. They are interesting to my ear. regards, G.

I gave a fairly quick listen to some other Japanese Metal bands which were not mentioned in this film (but were in the YouTube comments). I'm not a critic, but they aren't really my cuppa. Bow Wow isn't so bad, but also it isn't really all that novel. Loudness didn't really work for me. Earthshaker was kinda' boring (for me). Perhaps it was the imagery of the MV. Maybe someone with a better background in Metal will like it. Action! 44 Magnum Let's play really fast!!!!!!!!!! Meh Anyhoo, I'd be interested in any positive comments regarding these bands. Are these any good? To my untrained ear they seem to have the usual visuals, vocals guitar riffs and jack hammer drums, but with little variety in the song. Ergo, I find them boring. regards, G.