brownky

I agree with... some of that hahaha. I'm a 'new' goalie despite being old as dirt and got a 90 minute ice time despite being an out of shape defenceman. I actually gave myself heat exhaustion because A) I don't accept being bad at stuff even when I am and 2) Goalie gear is hot, being out of shape is hot, and the forwards/Dmen get to sit on their asses for a minute or two every other minute and goalies at best can brace up on the net. Get the forwards/D in goalie gear, I'd be interested to see how many of the guys would still try to cross over in the pads though.

And he does that right after I sing his praises a bit. Groovy lol.

I said it when we got him: He was beaten down mentally in the desert. Being somewhere with no hope, no chance of 'getting better' really takes a toll on a guy who cares. I'm in that exact situation albeit not in hockey, but I completely get it. He's got a fresh start on a team that is clearly looking like it "could" go somewhere, and he's going to need to be a key component of that. What a difference it makes - his skill was always there, so now if he's back to giving a **** like he did for the first few years in Arizona he's going to be a great player. I expect him to settle 'down' a bit from the "new team high" he'll be on, but he's still going to be far better than a lot of posters were thinking. I think they feel he's going to be like Luca Sbisa with Loui's contract the way he got sh*t on.

I should get out there, if everybody is beating Demko I might have a chance!

Good for Jim. He's been on the top of his game for 40 years... I think he's earned retirement. It's a shame we won't get to hear his calls anymore, but that's how time goes.

We couldn't spot him when he was playing either.

Loui's so far behind the play hasn't realized he was traded yet. And Edler got beat to the outside on his own signing. So it makes sense.

Putting a bigger computer in a Truck does not 'fix' a "technical deficit". I'm not referring to how big the stupid infotainment distraction is. When I refer to technical deficit, I refer to things like their decision to come forward from Leaf springs is a "new" development for them; Dodge (as an example) has been incrementally improving their independent coil ride for 10 years now. Toyota is very late to the party on that for the fullsize trucks. How will the reliability shake out for Toyota coming from scratch, specifically to the rear dampers when under load? When towing? How will the 'new' transmission cope with those loads in uneven towing conditions; in slippery or wet or mud? The other manufacturers have had their share of teething issues pairing their "new at the time" turbocharged motors to the running gear; Ford with the early Ecoboost had theirs too about 10 years ago. Same deal applies to GM, even when they were farting around with the Duramax stuff in the mid 2000s, and even today they still have issues with Chevy Shake as of a couple years ago. Toyota aren't rank amateurs by any stretch, and no doubt they've been working on this truck awhile, but hold the "fanboy/girlism" until it's a product people are driving in real world conditions for a couple of years. I'm extremely interested in the tundra, and am quite likely to buy one myself - assuming they did it right. Wait and see.

I'm a huge Toyota fan, but they have a hell of a deficit to make up. I did a 25 page marketing report on the Toyota Tundra 2 years ago and highlighted pretty much every single technical and production deficiency in the truck. Short story, they're facing a 10 year technical deficit that the other manufacturers have been incrementally building upon. Hell, even Nissan has been trying to keep up despite the engine 'issues'. I have high hopes, particularly given the use of the Landy engine from overseas, but we'll see what it looks like 'in the metal' once it rolls off the floor. I wouldn't pick up a launch year with them having to change so many things to make the truck a product of 2020, rather than 2007. Yes it's Toyota, but they've still made duds too. As for this question, the F150 is going to run away with it. It's an F150 to start with, the specs are respectable, and it doesn't look like dog****, it looks like a truck, AND it has the Ford dealer network for the 'resistant' people.

My only complaint about being 'under the US umbrella' is exactly that. We're going to be, whether we like it or not - but if we put ourselves in a position where we can say "we can also do this" when they try to pull 'that' umbrella card in other negotiations, it significantly lessens that impact as it were. We're in NATO, we participate in the ADIZ, we are part of "fortress North America." again, like it or not. BUT having our own system abilities, particularly given our ability to mine and process uranium within Canada and tell off the yanks once in awhile for other things would probably do the nation good. So I anticipate whatever government gets formed by whatever party [ies] to do exactly the opposite in time, and flush it down for some kickbacks at a later date.

#1 Brashear, #2 Rypien. Another close one. I gave the note to Don just because it took McSorley swinging a stick at his head to try to level the field. Looking back, Ryp would have fought Brashear willingly, and probably held his own to a degree but... Brashear was an animal of a different make when he got his hooks on somebody. He wasn't reliant on his size, he just happened to be huge 'as an added bonus'. There's no replacement for displacement - so I gave the nod to Brashear. You don't make 1000+ games in the NHL as a *fighter* unless you've got it.

The Hockey Hall of Fame? Not a chance. He didn't even have one season truly worthy of the HHOF, much less a career. Now, a Hall of Fame for "Players who requested a trade to one or two destinations" then sure. He can be in that hall of fame. And he is.

The years do not matter, only the cap benefit received. Nashville benefitted from the trailing years by virtue of real dollars; Nash paid him way more than the trailing 1m salary than MTL has. So even in those 4 years his salary was huge at nashville, in Montreal it's almost 'even' with his cap hit.

"Jfresh" is an overrated hack with an angle to grind most of the time, but dressed up in math to sound legitimate. 100% of people I polled agree with me.

I think big Dick will be fine. He's pretty slippery and goes to the tight areas, isn't afraid of contact. He definitely plays hard, and that's what you want. I'm just hoping he doesn't get injured from the rough play.

Another dark horse pick for me. And a bit of "lawyering" the question. I went with Kovalev. His "Prime" lasted 'minutes at a time' at his pleasure. Like he was bored of playing the rest of the time, kind of how an ex-pro takes it beyond easy in a beer league pickup game. Because in his day, he was the best player on the ice by an absolute mile, when he decided "yep, I'll turn em on for a shift". There was nobody past or present who could contain him when he wanted to let loose. I've said it before, he was probably the most individually talented player to play. His problem was, once that shift was over, he'd go back to sleeping in the Siberian winter, dragging ass around the rink and generally not putting the effort in. The most frustrating player to play at the same time, because you knew that talent was there, but he just wasn't arsed to use it except when somebody pissed him off. SO, at his peak, yeah, I want Kovalev. All 2 minutes of that peak. In "reality", I'd struggle to not take Fedorov as an all-rounder. Datsuyk was a "discount Fedorov", despite how unbelievably amazing Datsuyk was himself - that's just how good Fedorov was in the early-mid 90s. I think a lot of people here saw Fedorov towards the end, and when he was on Columbus and didn't get to see him in his prime.

Hockey is an analytics-resistant sport. There are too many variables to account for on a given play for the math to add up to a meaningful conclusion. "on averages" when you input the wrong data many, many times, the analytics data will also be flawwed. Hence why different models yield different results with the same data. It's pretty much all made up so people can sell how smart they are to other people. I laugh at anyone who uses WAR or Corsi at this point. There *are* analytics that show some interesting values... but neither of those two are that. So to answer your question, yes, it is, at least in hockey. Other sports perhaps not, but in hockey, yes, it's very broken.

Guaranteed income just means price increases, or haven't you been watching inflation the last year? If everybody has $2000 'more' to spend, that just means people selling $&!# will find a way to get $2000 more per person out of you. See also: any other large asset purchases over the past 2 years. As the stimulus has been tapering off, so have the prices to a small degree, although it remains to be seen how much further. GI is a great concept that always fails to take that into account. And unless there are caps placed by the bureaucrats who are already wildly apathetic and incompetent, that price increase is just what will happen. And if those caps are in, that starts to inch closer to authoritarianism... not to be conflated with socialist communism as far too many people will make the leap.

This is the most relevant post this offseason.

At least then when someone makes the inevitable shuttlecock joke (hmmm I wonder if that will pass the CDC censor as a real word... lol) on live TV, nobody will have grounds to be offended. But yes, that does sound somewhat entertaining. Particularly shootout badminton.

I agree with the majority of the "why" in your post. But undefined "growth" is not always good - growth comes with a price, and the benefits certainly don't extend to who it is costing. Perhaps it's just a difference of nomenclature or definition, but I do not believe "more" is better. *Better* is better. Higher 'quality' eyes versus just more. For example, I wouldn't mind seeing the racist/etc ***holes take a hike and be replaced by the 'different' eyes. I like the HNIC Punjabi, I don't like the "Pride month" necessity - not because of what it is, but because it shouldn't be necessary at all. I speak for myself when I say I don't give a **** whether someone is "black, white, orange, green, blue or purple", or what sort of dangly bits they fancy or have or fancy having. People should be free to enjoy whatever they want so long as it does not impact on others - and that's a blanket statement to me. And if they're stupid, they should be (and be able to be) ridiculed for their stupidity, not their skin, gender, or any other reason. That's my dream, anyway. Now back on track, I'm not opposed to "growth" - particularly organic growth. What they're doing here is "growing" the money pile for somebody else under the guise of "growing the game" - a game which does not need artificial growth. "Enough is enough" on that one - If Connor McDavid makes 12 or 14 or 18 million "next contract"... or if Poolman gets 1.5 Million or 2.5 Million a year to play... it doesn't make Poolman any better or worse. Or the billionaire owners collect another hundred million bucks on their "investments". There's no benefit to the game. Growing the National Hockey League does not need to be done. It's just straight money to them. They don't give a **** about hockey, it could be badminton, as long as it brings in the $$$, they're happy. Growing "the game" should be done at a grassroots level, but with ice time / coaching / equipment costs what they are, hockey is effectively (with some exceptions) an exclusive 'upper middle class and above' sport. That's the challenge, growing through that. /soapbox rant over

But *why* does the game need to grow? That’s the question I’m asking. What about ‘more’ makes it better? My point about their demographic dying off is the point - it doesn't speak to people in the younger demographics in part due to that chase for nothing but money over the past 30 years. I feel that this is another step down a very slippery slope. Where the NHL makes decisions not for the health of the league, but for the chequebooks of the billionaire owners who… don't need the help. And as they chase the dollars, the narrative gets more controlled because money talks. That’s what we get when we get ‘grown’. Pass.

The issue I have is... "Why?" Why does it have to be more exposed? Why does it have to be bigger? Other than rich ***holes getting wealthier, what's the net gain to people / society for this treadmill to "more"? It's a great game / sport. But if it can't stand on its own merits, why does it "need" to be bigger? Look how big Baseball got, chasing those dollars. Now they're in the backslide, because the younger generation doesn't give a **** about it. NFL - The Advertisment League, super bowl aside is having its own bumps. Maybe chasing the dollar isn't the right move ALL the time.

Not okay with it, but it is what it is. My wallet doesn't mean ***t to them anyway, but I'll somehow find a way to give them even less mind and wallet share.