-
Posts
10,799 -
Joined
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME
-
Have to admit, I sort of like the idea of using an indigenous person as the logo for a team called the “Americans.” Especially in the USA, where their claim on the term “American” is already a bit problematic (since there are lots of “Americans” spread over two continents). Would be kind of cool to see “Americans” depicted as the first people to actually inhabit these lands, especially for a team representing the capital of the USA. That all said, I think continuing to use the logo might encourage some people to continue to use the old name. And the point of the change is to put an end to having a team called the Washington [Racial Slurs] in the NFL.
-
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
- 3,880 replies
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
It’s been an hour. Has he signed yet?- 3,880 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[Signing] Montreal signs Alexander Romanov to ELC
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to qwijibo's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
So does that mean if Rathbone actually signs this week, he could join the team (after quarantine) for phases 3 and 4, come to training camp, practice with the Canucks, remain with the team inside the hub, but not participate in any of the actual games during the play-in/playoffs? -
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
He’s good friends with Demko. Also has known Aiden McDonough since they were young kids. Although I doubt those friendships factor much in his decision. No guarantee Demko will even be here after the expansion draft. And who knows if McDonough will sign. And you don’t really decide where you start your pro career on whether or not you have buddies in the system. I imagine there’s some pull from the Boston area and the potential to play at home and stay close to his brother. However, Rathbone has also expressed a lot of loyalty to the team that drafted him. So who knows. Personally, I think the main factor in his decision this week is whether or not he believes there will be any hockey to be played this season at Harvard. Fall sports have been cancelled, but there’s still a chance hockey starts up again sometime after January 1st. I think Rathbone still really wants to try to cap off his college career with a run at a championship (while playing a key, leadership role), especially after the last season being cancelled.- 3,880 replies
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
I suppose I could suffer through watching a Makar-lite. I just hope Jack signs. Ideally sometime in the next 65ish hours.- 3,880 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
As far as MacDonald and Gasper, Benning did acknowledge that they were moving on to better offers. He just wasn’t willing to comment directly, as the new hirings hadn’t been formerly announced by the respective teams yet, so he was basically just honouring those teams’ wishes to issue their own press releases, rather than them getting inadvertently scooped by Benning having loose lips during an interview with the Vancouver press. In the cases of Palango and Gallagher, I think direct comments on the reasons they were let go would be pretty unprofessional of Benning. I do suspect that Palango was never a favourite of JB’s, just because of his strong association with the previous regime (and Benning is hardly unique among NHL GM’s for clearing house on guys that have tight ties to the previous GM). Also, it may have been the Benning felt Palango was had performed poorly, was becoming redundant, or possibly he just wanted to put somebody in place that he trusted more (Palango was a “cross checker”—which is basically a scout who offers a second opinion on the work of primary scouts). Whatever the case, it would be pretty crappy of JB to directly comment on the reasons why he fired a guy (unless rumours and leaks to the press made it absolutely necessary to issue a statement). Better for everyone to keep those details in-house. Similar for Gallagher, who’s an old-timer and widely respected. Maybe he retired. Maybe Benning forced him to retire. Either way, it would be crappy of Benning to say the guy is retiring, unless Gallagher was sure he was retiring and he wanted to make that public. Maybe he wanted to step back, take time off, look for a part-time gig, etc. Or maybe he was getting old, had lost a step, wasn’t performing well, and it was just time for him to go. Either way, not really the type of thing JB needs to be sharing with the press. Whatever the case, neither Palango nor Gallagher have worked in pro scouting since they were let go (at least to my knowledge). Maybe they will again. But for what it’s worth, it doesn’t seem like any teams were chasing after them. None of this changes that fact that Brackett probably deserved a larger say in these personnel decisions. I’m with you there. I’ve said so in other posts. It is unusual for a GM to sideline their director of scouting to the extent it appears Brackett was, when it comes to hirings and firings within their own department. Especially when that scouting director is enjoying great success. However, it’s also a bit unusual to have a GM with the type of scouting background that Benning has. And it would be unusual to expect that kind of GM to be completely hands off, when it comes to scouting personnel decisions. I’d like to think that a happy medium could have been found, but it seems neither Brackett nor Benning were willing to bend enough for that to happen. The failure here probably lies on both of them, although I do think JB probably bears more of the weight of this failure. I highly doubt Brackett expected Benning to be completely hands off. More likely Judd just wanted more of a seat at the table, when it came to personnel decisions in his own department, and that’s not an unreasonable ask. He earned it, IMO. For Benning’s part, I do believe JB really thought he was giving Brackett autonomy to run the scouting department. However that autonomy started and ended wherever Benning saw fit (so was it really “autonomy?”—seems Brackett and Benning has differing definitions). If Benning wanted to shuffle personnel, he felt that was his right, and that he didn’t need (or even really care about) Judd’s approval. As far as chain of command goes, Benning was entirely correct to claim such authority, but he probably would have been better served by throwing Brackett a bone, and letting his scouting director feel like he had an important role in the process, and a real say in these kinds of decisions. In my previous post, I think what I was really responding to was what you seemed to be insinuating here: “I'm sure there were arguments both within and without the amateur scouting department. Then they had to convince the GM and AGM and the owner. I'm sure that those under Brackett, once consensus had been reached, were instrumental in also backing Brackett's choices when the time came. So Benning, simply fired three key talented players in Bracketts department.” I really don’t think the 2019 firings were about Benning intentionally undercutting Brackett’s authority or strategically purging the scouts that Judd relied on to back him. Two of the guys that were let go were legitimately leaving to pursue better jobs with other organizations. The third was a longtime Gillis associate. The fourth was of retirement age. And those last two haven’t worked again. Seems more like Benning was just making personnel changes that he felt were necessary, and for the good of the team. I didn’t get the sense he was making some play to cut off Brackett at the knees. Nonetheless, it would have been better management practice for Benning to have avoided making Brackett feel sidelined in the process. The Canucks have had three major personnel shuffles in the scouting department under Benning, and in all three, it seems Brackett had little to no say in who was getting fired. That’s Benning’s right, and quite possibly, he’s even the best person in the organization to be making those kinds of decisions. However, I do think JB has a slight blind spot as to how his hiring/firings practices might impact his subordinate (especially one tasked with running the department being affected). Benning seems alternately wounded/hurt by Judd’s “betrayal” and baffled by Brackett’s desire for more autonomy. And Jim doesn’t have all that good a poker face, so I think that what he gives off in the interviews is legitimately how he feels about the situation. He doesn’t really seem to understand why Brackett would have any issue with the way things were being run. And Benning doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with how he wanted the scouting department to continue operating (when it comes to “autonomy”). I don’t think Brackett was asking for anything more than he deserved. And I think he’ll probably have the level of “autonomy” he wants in his new job with the Wild. But I also don’t think he was ever going to get it in Vancouver. I don’t think any Canucks scouting director ever will, under Benning as a GM. And ultimately, that’s probably ok. I don’t think Benning really can be expected to step back to that degree, when it comes to scouting, and I don’t actually believe it’s really best for the team for Benning to take a completely backseat role in the scouting department. I do, however, think that Benning could have handled this situation better than he did. He could (and probably should) have delegated more of his role and granted Brackett greater authority over personnel decisions. He could have easily made his young, star scouting director feel like he had the “autonomy” he desired, while still ultimately holding onto the final say, as GM. Plenty of GMs around the league have no issues with this balancing act (even some with pretty similar backgrounds to Benning). Anyway, it’s Sunday, I have better things to do, yet here’s another essay length post by me on Brackett. -
[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Canucks Talk
On the other hand, when it comes to the 2019 personnel changes in the scouting department, sometimes turnover is just turnover. Chris MacDonald left because he was offered a better job with another team. He’s now the Director of European Scouting for Arizona. He wasn’t so much fired as allowed to leave to pursue a better opportunity. Similar for Doug Gasper, who went back to his first love, joining the front office of a WHL team (he’s now the AGM in Brandon). Dan Palango looks to have been fired, but not really a surprise there. He was as much a Gillis guy as you can get. Worked for 13 years as a player agent for M.D. Gillis and Associates. Then joined Gillis when MG became the GM in Vancouver. Benning kept him on, but he was probably on borrowed time and it’s more surprising that he wasn’t fired in one of the earlier purges. Paul Gallagher is a highly respected guy, but I think he’s also pushing around 70 years of age. Not sure if he retired, but I don’t believe he’s worked in scouting since being let go in 2019. -
Death rates tend to lag behind positive tests. The full impacts of these surges in confirmed cases will likely be seen over the coming weeks and months. Especially in the many counties where ICU beds have already reached 100% occupancy. They are not in a good place.
-
Trading Baertschi for Rasmus Andersson sure would solve a lot of problems right now.
-
Vasily Podkolzin | #92 | RW
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to GoldenAlien's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
Pretty sure he was talking about Fanta. -
Or Petey will sit JB down and say there’s nothing to it. *Pettersson walks into Benning’s office* JB: “Hi, Elias! How can I help you?” EP: “I’ve been hearing some rumours lately.” JB: “Do you mean the stuff about Brock?” EP: “Yes.” *Petterson gives a level 1 death stare* JB (nervously): Oh, well, um, y’know, like, we have to look at ways we can improve the team and...” *Petterson gives a level 2 death stare* JB (more nervously): “y’know, like, we’re listening to offers and...” *Pettersson gives a level 3 death stare* JB (shaking): “but, but, like, we’re not shopping Brock or, like, anything. Just looking at, like, possible trades that might, like, help us compete and stuff..” *Pettersson waives his hand* EP (in Jedi voice): “That’s not the trade you’re looking for.” JB: “That’s not the trade I’m looking for.” *Pettersson waives his hand* *Benning starts blinking repeatedly* JB (confused): “Um, what were we talking about again?” EP: “I was asking about the rumours about trading Brock.” JB: “That’s not the trade I’m looking for.” EP: “Good to hear it, Jim. Thanks for clearing all that up.” /scene
-
I wish the NHL had an unsung hero award. Draisaitl would be a shoo-in.
-
Joe Biden Debates Donald Trump September 29
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to DonLever's topic in Off-Topic General
I’m not sure how much sleep the Dems are going to lose over this. First off, the polling was from the UK, and conducted by The Gild (a strategic brand consultancy). I’m not sure how applicable the data would be. Just because 59% of Zoomers in the UK call themselves “conservative” or “moderate,” when it comes to issues like “gay marriage, marijuana legalization, transgender rights, and tattoos,” doesn’t really mean that Gen Z in the USA is going to vote Republican. It’s also a shame that the original polling is behind a paywall, because I’d really like to see how many of those UK Zoomers actually answered “moderate.” Let’s say, of the 59%, half answered “conservative” and half answered “moderate.” That would mean that around 70% of those polled would have also answered either “moderate” or “liberal.” When it comes to Gen Z polling in the USA, most of what I’ve seen tells a very different story than this Forbes article. Here’s Pew Research: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far/ From the above data, we see pretty wide support among Gen Z for an activist government and things like gay marriage, transgender rights, etc. They are certainly the most progressive voting age group in the USA, when it comes to these issues. Google “Gen Z politics” and you’ll come across a bunch of articles and polling/studies saying the same thing. Generation Z is the most progressive age group in the USA. One article even suggested that AOC’s political positions represent the median attitudes of Zoomers, meaning for Gen Z, AOC is basically a centrist (let that sink in). Also, when you search “Gen Z politics,” every article that mentions Zoomers as “centrist” or “right leaning” is quoting the data from that one UK poll. All the other polling data and articles I’ve seen seem to suggest the exact opposite, especially when it comes to Zoomers in the USA. https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-gops-gen-z-problem-and-path-forward/ https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.voanews.com/student-union/gen-z-politically-leaning-left%3famp https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.teenvogue.com/story/how-will-gen-z-vote/amp https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/08/gen-z-was-fed-up-with-status-quo-coronavirus-could-reinforce-their-liberal-politics/%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/01/28/the-2020s-can-end-americas-generational-divide-in-politics/amp/ -
Vasily Podkolzin | #92 | RW
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to GoldenAlien's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
It’s very interesting how every year, the draft has trends much like any market, and savvy investors can take advantage. In 2019, the USNT class created a hot market for American prospects, while other nationalities, like Canadians and Swedes, were comparatively soft. For 2020, you see the Canadians on the rise, while the Americans and Russians look potentially undervalued. It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out, but I suspect there will be some good value on the board for Day 2, especially looking at the Americans (USHL, prep/high school) and Russians (especially MHL). Hopefully our scouting in those regions is strong, because I think the overall trends suggest there will be some good value available, with some potential 1st/2nd round talents falling to the 3rd round and later. -
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
https://post.futurimedia.com/ckstam/playlist/listen-25450.html- 3,880 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
Haha, remains to be seen. Depends on if Judd was running a one man show, or we actually had some other scouts on the payroll who can also judge talent.- 3,880 replies
-
- 5
-
-
-
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
The goalie and iron are really the stars in this clip, but this sequence gives a fairly good idea of the kind of weapons Rathbone has in his arsenal:- 3,880 replies
-
- 4
-
-
-
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
From the games I’ve seen, I’d say Rathbone’s shot is both heavy and accurate. He really has a bomb from the point, and he regularly gets it on net and through traffic. He also has a lethal wrister that can pick corners from the high slot and the circles.- 3,880 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
Hopefully Rathbone signs during the window. Would be nice to see an aspect of the CBA/MOA actually benefit Vancouver, for once.- 3,880 replies
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
You’re 100% correct. Harvard doesn’t do athletic scholarships (nor do the other Ivys), and the bulk of their scholarships/funding is needs based, so there would be very little impact on a guy like Rathbone. Once he gained admission, he was pretty much guaranteed to receive funding (assuming he met the needs criteria). Or if his family is wealthy, then he doesn’t really need a scholarship anyway (and he wouldn’t be eligible for most funding). Either way, the sports shutdown doesn’t really affect his ability to study. As far as other schools, where there are athletic scholarships, and much of that funding is tied (either directly or indirectly) to revenues generated from sports, it’s possible a student might lose their athletic scholarship during the shutdown (depends on the guarantees), but I highly doubt that would directly affect their enrolment. Generally, once you gain admission to college, you’re in. And you don’t get kicked out unless you really mess up (like with conduct, grades, etc). Losing an athletic scholarship would not get you kicked out of school. You just lose that source of funding (which would suck, of course, but not the end of the world as there are usually other funding options available). I definitely don’t see any current students getting kicked out of their schools because they lost athletic scholarships. I can’t see that being a policy anywhere (although admittedly, I don’t know, but I’ve never heard of such a thing). Just seems highly unethical. Especially in this current pandemic situation, which is completely outside of the student’s control, and no fault of their own. There is, however, a crisis when it comes to new admissions and recruitment. Many schools are facing a cash crunch due to lost revenues from canceling sports. The major attendance/viewership draws (football, basketball, hockey, etc) are a huge source of revenue for US colleges and losing that money could mean that some student athletes won’t be getting the same opportunities that would normally be there for them.- 3,880 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Jack Rathbone | #3 | D
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME replied to Tomato Pajamas's topic in Prospects / Farm Team
I don’t think so. It wouldn’t really make sense to cancel his enrolment, assuming his grades are fine. Even without the scholarship, he could continue to attend classes, just on his own dime. Different story, I suppose, for some of the kids just coming out of high school. No sports and scholarships could mean no admission, for some.- 3,880 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Agreed. And was just trying to create a combined hypothetical that got close to value for first overall, and also addressed the cap issues, all in one move. It may not be the best choice, practically speaking. Might be better to try to get the very best package of assets, in a first overall trade, and then address the cap issues in separate moves. Ultimately, the reason for doing this would be to open a window for the next couple years where the team can compete. Currently, the cap issues, combined with the weakness on D, is limiting how far this team can reasonably be expected to go. Without fixing the D, I don’t see the Canucks being contenders. I don’t see them really fixing the D without fixing the cap situation. And while Lafreniere is an elite prospect, I don’t know if adding him to the current mix, without fixing the back end, is enough to really make this team a contender. That all said, I’d probably still keep Lafreniere and hope that our elite talent group will be ready in a couple years, when most of the boat anchor contracts will come off the books. In terms of long term success, adding an elite talent like Lafreniere is probably a better move than adding a package of lesser assets, even if the sum of the parts is greater.
-
It’s really tough to put a value on a first overall, but I tried to get close. I think my return (including the value of the cap dump) comes out somewhere around 125% of the value of an “average” first overall, based on some of the recent pick value charts. If you take out a first from Montreal’s offer, I think the return is too low. The team trading away first overall needs to be “winning” the deal on combined value, because of the X factor of an elite prospect like Lafreniere. Otherwise, it’s really not worth making the trade (which is part of why these moves basically never happen).