-
Posts
29,921 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Smashian Kassian
-
Every year that goes by is the least I know about the prospects - and I used to love the draft. But I read Daniel Wagner's piece today ('11 prospects to consider'), so now have less than 'the jist of it'. (also heard Cam Robinson & Shane Malloy on local programming) Mintyukov is the name I've heard most. Seems like an ultra skilled D, from the brief clips I saw I wonder about his defensive game. Regardless, a middle pairing OFD with upside is certainly a good selection at 15. Cutter Gauthier is really intriguing from the 1 paragraph I read on him, plays multiple positions & has size + skill in all areas. Seems like he won't be there for us though. Yurov has some questions about upside from what I've read. Then there's a bunch of other forwards that project similarily if things go right - potential top 6. I heard someone say that Mateychuk just rushes the puck constantly, seems like a red flag to me. Hughes did it often at Michigan but you could tell he had elite hockey sense & his decision making in doing so was great even at that age. Unless you really believe Mateychuk is an impact top 3D I don't think I'm taking him, we have Rathbone who seems comparable in some respects. Ultimately I think there's some intriguing D prospects (beyond the 2 I mentioned) and a plethora of forwards with good potential. So whatever we go with hopefully we find the diamond in the rough, b/c there are always players from 10-20 that hit & are better than players gone ahead of them.
-
Landing Kuzmenko would be huge, but I'm not expecting a sure-fire impact player by any means. Many in this market remember Fabian Brunnstrom, there's also Nikita Gusev (who did have 1 rly good year), Roman Cervenka was given a nice deal by the Flames & never worked, Vadim Shipyachov is another one that only played 3 games, exc. We'll see but I'm thinking best case a good top 9 FWD that contributes offense in a secondary role, certainly not a replacement for Boeser, Garland, or Miller.
-
No I'm not taking it for granted, nor do I think its a contradiction. Whats been achieved in the West - individual freedom/liberty/autonomy, and societies that sustain those things for all - is remarkable. Its a miracle & an outlier in human history. I think this is why I'm criticizing the current state of things b/c I feel its slipping. And even if I'm completely wrong in feeling that way, why not ask why things can't function better? My criticism can be boiled down to this; the idealism of democracy is eroding at this point in time. So what to do about it? (if anything?) We hold 'our democracy' sacred because of the individual freedoms/autonomy people have to live as they see fit, and secondly the opportunity to participate in the political process that shapes the society - having some sort of a say. But my criticism would be that the political parties whom are suppose to represent constituents - us that have 'the say' - are entities in themselves that prioritize their self interest ahead of their constituents. I could give you examples
-
Sorry my mistake. I agree completely. Crazy they'd fire him
-
Hopefully Danila will start to become a big time AHL player next year, and get playoff games. He's still so so young, it's crazy he even made the AHL at 18. Just need to have patience here.
-
I always think Brock is the guy we need to move, then he has a game where he scores 2 goals & shows why he can be such a threat. Him & Garland are different but both so good. Ideally we get Brock on something closer to that rather than 6.5, then move forward with both. But I guess it all depends what happens with Miller too.
-
The beginning of the year was the outlier. Miller's a 90+ pt player, Demko is a top 5-10 goalie, Hughes is a #1D, OEL is a #2D, Pettersson has enormous upside & Horvat is a 30 goal scorer. Nvm Podkolzin could be our Landeskog. This team is loaded with talented players, and Bruce made them believe they were as good as they are. Tons of upside with this team & it's already begun in how they played most of last year.
-
This is the crux of what your saying here; individuals have their own values. Correct. Sure, a true Communist could call the extents of the Holodomor western propaganda (I've seen it on Twitter). That doesn't mean they are right. Analyzing history leads us to determining whether decisions made were correct or not. History in relation to current times gives us lessons to apply, not the clear answer, for sure - its more like wisdom than an answer key. But history does show us that there were 'correct' decisions (better outcomes) that were made or not made - which means that issues now can lead to better or worse outcomes. That's my point. And one of histories lessons is that popular isn't always right. Popular is the Nazi's/Fascism, Popular is Communism, Popular is slavery, Popular is war. Its all been 'popular'. Communism did not grab merely 'a small group', the New York Times shilled for the Soviets. My point of 'correct' is simply that popular =/= correct, therefore individual autonomy is preferred where possible. The bolded is certainly ideal but people hold different views/experiences. 2 people could have the exact same information, both be taxing pay citizens that wouldn't want to kill or harm anyone, and (free of external pressures) come to different conclusions/desires. Its not that either are bad people, but your just not going to convince most regardless. (especially once you then factor in external/social pressures) Even if we go with popular being best, why does 1 entity (party) have to represent you on absolutely every issue? Nevermind something you regard as having no concern for the life of you & your family? (depending who's in power). Why not choosing your position on issues on a more individual basis than handing over the keys every 4 years? This idea would be considered deranged if it wasn't hardwired into us. The parties themselves have no concern for the reasons people choose them, this is why 'broken election promises' is a regular thing. Their just trying to win a popularity contest.
-
We don't live in 1932-33 Ukraine, so I guess the answer is never getting 100%, by why settle for a low percentage regardless? If the glorification we hold of democracy is the constituents having control (and a single vote every 4 years certainly isn't control over the federal gov't, whatsoever) then why do we have to perpetually accept the ineptitude & malfeasance of the political class? Its not just about getting the outcome I would prefer on a 'culture war' issue or leader who individually represents us, we're talking about people/parties who have no regard for our interest/prosperity unless its in their interest.