Gollumpus
-
Posts
7,291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Gollumpus
-
-
6 hours ago, coryberg said:
Hamonic's NTC is only 8 teams so they have 23 options. Who would even want him is the bigger issue.
Assuming Hamonic will be more than just a set of numbers on the LTIR for the remainder of his current deal, I suppose all he'd have to do is sit down with his agent/advisors/family and figure out the places he wouldn't want to go (regardless of country etc), and then figure out which of those would be the safest to leave off of his list. For example, he may not want to go to Montreal, but their current cap situation might make then reluctant to bring Hamonic on board, even for one year. On the other hand, Buffalo might be on the list because they do have the cap space, and so on.
It would be an interesting balancing act to see.
regards, G.
-
On 1/29/2022 at 9:29 PM, aGENT said:
If he does, we trade him.
Maybe.
Player primes are roughly 24-32 with peaking at 27-28.
Like I've said all along, our window is roughly 2-7 years from now, with our best chance at a cup when Hughes and Petey are 27/28 +/-
Why couldn't all those players contribute in that time frame?
That's not too say we can't still be a bubble playoff team the next couple years but if we want to build a contender, we need to BUILD a contender.
Sure, I don't see us as big free agent spenders the next couple years either. One of Paul/Tierney/Sturm for 3C and maybe a 3LD this summer. And yes we'll make sure we're pay our young guys.
Again, 4 years is Hughes/Pettersson's peak +/- and likely our best for at a cup. We could do a lot worse than a solid support player on a cheap ELC.
Apologies for a late response (again). I'm finding the Scotties curling to be monopolizing my attention. I was writing a lengthy response, and trust me it was brilliant, and then I managed to erase it... completely. (sigh)
Short response from what I recall my intentions were, I still have reservations regarding the level of talent which will be on this team in 4 year's time *as in, lots of talent, but inexperienced). Moving Miller (which does make sense from one POV) could bring lots of benefits. It could also lead to a migration on the part of a number of current roster players who are being relied upon to fill the core over the next 4+ years.
Maybe Boeser gets traded because he wants "too much". If Horvat wants something close to his market value, then maybe he also gets traded. What about the prospects/young players already with the team, or those who may be acquired from moving the young veteran players from the Canucks? Will there be enough to pay them in 4 year's time, without trading some of those other, now older guys, from the core?
Anyhoo, I'm tired, and I'm going to bed. Maybe I'll get back to this later.
regards, G.
-
15 hours ago, Me_ said:
That the Canucks won’t trade their core, including Miller, but they have to shed salary somewhere.
Garland, Pearson, Hamonic and Halak can go.
Maybe trim that wish list down to just Garland as the only sure bet to be able to be moved. The other three have various forms of movement restriction clauses which would have to be addressed (unless this has already happened and I missed it because I was paying more attention to curling). And of the four, Garland would be the one who I would least like to see getting traded...
regards, G.
-
1
-
-
On 1/30/2022 at 4:27 PM, -Vintage Canuck- said:
Bryan Helmer
regards, G.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, aGENT said:
Horvat will just be entering his 32-34 decline at the end of that window and on a smaller cap hit than Miller. Not already well in to it like Miller. If he wants to stick around, he fits just fine and can transition down to a wily 3C in the end. And not with a $9m anchor.
Ideally we sign Horvat for 6 years that would have him set to expire at 33. Then we can possibly re-up him at an appropriate 3C rate/term then.
Or, Horvat just says, "Screw this" before he reaches that point, and gets himself traded, or goes UFA.
33 minutes ago, aGENT said:Certainly possible. It's a business. Do they move Boeser's scoring for more speed? Maybe.
Or, the Canucks move Boeser to another team for scoring and speed, in a younger package? And maybe some size.
37 minutes ago, aGENT said:That's Pettersson's (and Hughes) peak, precisely when we'll be building for. Why not some of the primary F's? You can probably include Garland, Podkolzin and perhaps Hoglander in that. Maybe Klimovich as well, or a guy we get in the Miller trade etc, etc... And who says they'll be all we have? We will continue to draft, trade for and sign players. Maybe our first rounder this year is a key piece?
Well, I'm riffing off of the idea of the team being young(er), and since it (usually) takes time to develop talent, I'm not holding out a lot of hope for Podkolzin, Klimovich, or even Hoglander being a major part at that time. Once again, it would be nice to be wrong on this, but I suspect that all of these guys need more than a couple of years before they are at their peak.
My assumptions on the free agent market is that (at least as some see the Canucks' cap situation) are that the team won't do any significant signings because of cap considerations and the desire the make sure that those guys like Pettersson, Podkolzin, Hoglander, horvat or whomever get paid.
A 1st rounder will probably take four years (or more), so if they are part of a playoff team at that time I suspect that they will mostly be a role player. Not a bad thing, I suppose.
This is a fun discussion.
regards, G.
-
3 minutes ago, aGENT said:
I think your math might be off based on the packages being bandied about.
For example, the Rangers package is likely to include Chytil (22 and currently paying in the NHL, on a contender) and Schneider (20 and currently paying in the NHL, on a contender).
How/why are they going to be unable to contribute to the Canucks next year and going to take 4 years?
I would ask, how do we know that they are actually in any discussion, other than in rumor/speculation by people who are not involved with either team? Chickens, hatched, and all that...
If these guys (playing on a contender) were to perform here as advertised, then great, it would take some of the sting out of losing Miller. People around here thought that Cody Hodgson was the greatest player ever, and refused to believe that he was playing sheltered minutes. This being said, Schneider has only 8 NHL games to his credit.
Chyril does have size, looks to be fairly mobile, and is defensively sound, but he doesn't appear to be an offensive force out there. I haven't looked up his ceiling potential, but does it look like he will be a top-6 forward around here? I'm thinking he'll be a middle-6 tweener, mostly on the third line (C/W), which isn't bad. Miller would more than adequately fill any void for the Rangers if they moved Chyril.
Perhaps the Canucks could offload Dickiinson, which would make some folks around here quite happy.
I do have doubts that the Rangers would give up on Schneider, as he looks to be part of their long term future. At a quick glance, with the development of Fox, I could see the Rangers trying to move Lundkvist rather than Schneider. Trouba (NMC), Fox and Schneider looks a lot better than Trouba (NMC), Fox and Lundkvist (at least to me it does).
So, overall, the Canucks lose offense from the forward lines, a iop-6 C/W, and an inspirational leader (maybe some other things?), and gain some cap space(?), potentially a 3C/W (which would be great, but is not a sure thing), a RD of some description who is still needing some development (I would like Schneider here, but I suspect that he is a year or so away from reaching his potential), and a mystery door prize from the Rangers 1st round pick (currently 27OA), assuming that is part of the deal. It looks like it would take the Canucks closer to being a contender, but....
regards, G.
-
-
On 1/22/2022 at 11:18 AM, aGENT said:
Most of our core is 25 and under right now. The group of guys we have the best shot at a cup with, isn't even in their prime for another couple years. The team needs to focus it's planning on having the best depth and biggest push while they're between +/-25-30 years old or roughly years 2-7 from now. EVERYTHING should be planned around that, as it will give us our greatest chances to win a cup.
So no, this isn't about continuing to cycle players out/in forever. It's about cycling players out who don't fit that timeline and focusing all of our efforts towards that window. A declining, mid 30's Miller at $8m+ does not do that. That's a depreciating anchor, right in the meat of that window.
Apologies for a late response. I'm easily distracted by shiny objects...
So how old will Horvat be in two years? (28) How old will Boeser be in four years? (28) What will their contracts be like? I don't know, but they will very likely be north of their current cap hit, and how eager will the team be to offer NTC/NMC clauses if demanded? What is the likelihood that one of those two get moved (or leaves the Canucks), for any one of several reasons? Possibly quite good. While we're at it, Pettersson will be 28 in four years time (birthday in November). Will Horvat, Boeser and Pettersson (as the primary forwards) be enough to win a Cup? I suspect not. I'd be happy to be shown that I am wrong.
Will Miller, at 30 - 34 be enough to help the team win the Cup? Maybe, maybe not, but I believe he will (likely) be a lot more effective in that role than whatever guys the Canucks get from the (likely) 1st rounder, and other prospects/players which they get in such a deal. Bottom third (or lower) 1st round picks seem to develop more slowly, and if the other team really liked a prospect who was that close to be NHL ready, then they would probably already have him on their roster, or he is heir 4th - 5th guy on their depth chart because of the guys ahead him.
regards, G.
-
On 1/22/2022 at 11:27 PM, N4ZZY said:
I think if the Canucks put conditions on the 1st, then the rest of the package might be of lesser value.
It depends. If the other team is reluctant to fork over everything that is asked of them, conditions on a pick can be a (relatively) low risk chip. (Give up their first rounder? Cool. Give up the better of any first rounders they have at the time of the amateur draft? Cool, if they don't trade for a second 1st rounder that year which is higher than their own pick).
regards, G.
-
22 hours ago, Me_ said:
But why???
The kids are right here.
23OA15 Boeser
5OA17 Pettersson
7OA18 Hughes
10IA19 Podkolzin
These guys won't be kids anymore when the assets from a Miller trade (hopefully) come to fruition. How old will these "kids" be in four of years? I suggest four years because that is what I see as the likely turn around time of the assets the Canucks might get in a Miller trade. In that time, Boeser and Horvat will be 28 and 30, respectively. Pettersson will be 27 going on 28....
The only (significant) advantage which may be gained from trading Miller, in the short term, is extra cap space.
regards, G.
-
12 hours ago, CanucksJay said:
I think trading all those guys makes us go backwards.
Yeah, but it will bring the team core closer to a cohesive age, which seems to be a popular theme for some. Trade Miller because he's "too old", and "he's playing well so his value is high", and "his contract end is coming up so he may want more than what the team wants to pay out", and "OMG, <player> needs a new deal so how does he get paid? Trade Miller."
The assets acquired in a Miller trade are likely not going to be of use for the entire time of the window you see coming up (see below). If the Canucks trade Miller, and then trade Boeser and Horvat, the guys coming in will all be in the same age bracket, and closer to the guys who are going to be the core in 2 - 3 years (Pettersson, Highes, Podkolzin, etc).
12 hours ago, CanucksJay said:Because Myers and OEL are even older than Horvat Boeser and co.
So then we'd also have to rebuild our defence.
Yup. This being said, those guys are not really going to be counted on to be part of the core, or if they are, then the team is in even more trouble than they are right now.. They will (assuming they are still with the Canucks in 4- 6 years, give or take), be part of the veteran presence who are soon to be on their way out the door. The main reason they will still be with the Canucks is because of their contracts.
12 hours ago, CanucksJay said:I think our window is truly the next 2-3 years and then we have to rebuild whether we like it or not.
I like your optimism, but I can't say that I share in it. There is talk of trading Miller, for all kinds of assets. Depending on what those assets are, maybe they could be involved in this window, but likely not. What are the chances that a lower third 1st round pick will result in a guy who can play in the NHL by the time he is 21/22? Not very likely
<insert look at Boeser, Pastrnak, Konecny. comments here>.
Look at the Canuck players who did make it to the NHL in their first season. Pettersson was a #5OA, so him making it wasn't too surprising. Similar to this is Hughes, who was a high pick (#7OA), and a couple of years older. Horvat was a #9OA. Boeser is the only one of the four who was a surprise at how effective he was right out of the gate, and he was a bit older, and developed some in college level hockey.
Trade Miller and the core disappears without what he brings to the team. They will have to make it on their own, and I don't believe that they will be able to do it in this window. And the team (likely) can't count on the assets from a Miller trade to get them over the hump in the next three years. Miller is 28. In two years tm Horvat will be 28, and what will his contract demands be in a year's time?. Will he be traded sooner so that money can be directed to Boeser? Boeser will be 26 in two year's time, so what will his new contract be (cap/term), and will that deal become an anchor for the team (not for his play/production, but for how that deal will reduce the flexibility which the team has).
As to the prospects/young roster players who might also be included: I suspect that they won't be NHL ready. If they were, then they likely wouldn't be involved in the trade.
12 hours ago, CanucksJay said:If it was me, I'd wait until TDL and if we are playing .650 hockey under BB and look really good, I'd double down and add for the playoffs.
Waiting until the TDL likely is a good idea, but then we don't really know what offers are rolling in the door. If Rutherford thinks that he has a great deal, and sees that there is a chance that another team will try to sneak in with a similar offer to the buying team, then he may jump a few weeks earlier. This being said, I suspect that the Canucks would be not too eager to trade away any more high picks, or any of the various prospects which are highly regarded around here.
regards, G.
-
Meh, if the team trades Miller, then they should trade Horvat. If they trade Horvat, then they should trade Boeser.
The Canucks (probably) get as many as three 1st round picks, perhaps additional higher picks, good prospects, some higher caliber young players... and a lot of cap space, something which is constantly being screamed about around here.
regards, G.
-
9 hours ago, Chicken. said:
I'm optimistic because that's just the type of person I am... glass half full
This is good. That being said, there's always some around here who are in the glass half full category... or worse.
9 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:No matter what moves he does. There are going to be those that criticize every move or moves he doesn't do.
It's sad it's pretty much a no win scenario.
Yup. For some, this would be a glass "half full".
regards, G.
-
1 minute ago, -DLC- said:
Yes, right. Trade him when his value is the absolute lowest.
Well, when else? People have to be able to make the most of their claims regarding "poor asset management", right?
regards, G.
-
3 minutes ago, Devron said:
It’s pretty normal for people to talk this way. Last year it was Hughes. “He’ll never be good defensively”
Boeser and Petey are both 28 years old too
There is an argument to be made regarding Hughes' defensive ability. There is a big difference between being good defensively, and having enough natural ability to be able to (sometimes) be able to catch up to the play after one has made a mistake.
regards, G.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said:
Akane from Band-Maid has to be the happiest, craziest drummer in the world.
Nao Kawakita, from Maximum the Hormone is also in that conversation (she is one of Akane's iinspirations).
regards, G.
Akane doing a cover of Max drums. There seems to be a lack of good Max performances:
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:
Damn well worth it.
Yeah, but I suspect that the folks in this part of Canucks Entertainment think they look better by pinching pennies.
regards, G.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:
Needs a trade for future considerations.
They should play some Band-Maid, but that would probably cost a couple of dollars, so likely it won't happen.
regards, G.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Green Building said:
If I could go back in time and redo my Japan trip I'd look for a punk rock show in Tokyo. Trip predated smart phones though so woulda been hard to find.
A couple of acts with which you may already be familiar:
regards, G.
-
1
-
-
-
On 1/20/2022 at 9:23 AM, Nuxfanabroad said:
Short & sweet. Team's playing great now, but cap troubles will soon rear it's ugly head.
JT Miller should get a shot at the silver. Should he go, we step back(but also get younger, & likely deeper in youth).
The Question: Who's another 4-5 mill AAV we should also unload, if the price is right?
Right now I'd prob say Bo. Imagine the stash of youth we could add, dealing these two?
Then we'd build around QH, TD, EP, BB & Pod-monster. It's a high-octane, REVAMP, L & G...
The way I see how this line of thought develops, every two or so years the Canucks trade away their better/older players for other team's prospects and picks, then develop those guys, and then trade them away for more prospects and picks. Supposedly, somewhere in there, there is a point when the Canucks will win a Cup (or two) with a bunch of guys who are 26 yrs old or younger, who will then be traded because they are "too old".
This is getting so much like Carrousel from "Logan's Run", only they wait until the people get to 30 before they are gotten rid of.
regards, G.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:
Not a bad idea! The only risk is that it could be worse next year.....but I like the idea
I don't see the risk being all that high, and I suspect that the other team would also see the risk being minimal. This being said, if it paid off........
15 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:No, they should pay up front. They pay for the retention, with asset.....he is theirs
What I am suggesting is that the other team doesn't get to take full advantage of trading Miller at next season's TDL. The Canucks should get a taste. The Canucks get the full value of the trade (as we see it), with a rider. Once again, it's maybe a low risk condition, but if it pays off...
19 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:personally, I like 3rd year prospects or young roster player, but in either case, teams need a continual source of ELC's, or they get forced into moving assets as their team grows
Sure, no problems there, but what a lot of posters seem to be suggesting is that the team should trade away some of the movers and shakers for picks/prospects, and that the team will continue to perform at a high pace, not taking into account that some of what is moving the team are the very guys who many are saying should be traded.
Further, there seems to be a feeling which some have, almost like a "Logan's Run" kind of vibe, that once a player reaches a certain age he should be moved out, regardless. If Miller is "too old" at 28, do we start to have these kind of discussions in two years time when Horvat hits 28?
28 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:It is about return.......if 1 year of retention improves your return and if that return is worth it, then go for it, if not don't
Sure, but if the other team wants to off load cap dumps on to the Canucks (as well as expect retention) then there would have to be a lot more return coming to the Canucks, which I don't see coming. The return i see involves getting as good a return on the 1st as possible (with conditions to improve that potentially improve this result), and players/prospects which are (as close as possible) revenue neutral with regard to the cap. Some additional term might okay.
I could see the other team trading a couple of useful pieces with a combined cap hit somewhere equal to Miller's, but if the Canucks are already looking at (re-)signing some of their own players/prospects and they are already in tight with their cap, then I don't see any need in gifting the other team with cap flexibility.
36 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:I would only take it as a cap dump, which improves your return
Back to my previous point, who don't you sign because of all of this extra cap the Canucks would be retaining/taking on? And if it's just for a cap dump contract, then that takes a lot of "win" out of trading Miller.
38 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:Good post!
I try, or rather, people say that I'm trying....
regards, G.
-
1
-
-
On 1/19/2022 at 3:11 PM, HKSR said:
We talk about how JT Miller's value is at an all-time high, but how do we quantify that?
I did some research and the reality is, PPG players under 30 years old are RARELY traded. Especially ones that can play any forward position, has leadership qualities, brings an edge to his game, can play PP and PK, and simply has a passion for the game.
Here are a few comparables that I was able to dig up...
Mark Stone
Position: Right Wing
Age when traded: 27 years old
Cap Hit at time of trade: $7.35M AAV
Years remaining on contract: UFA Year (last year)
Points per game for the 3 seasons preceding trade: 0.95 PPG
Traded from/to: OTT to VGK
Traded for: With Tobias Lindberg for Oscar Lindberg, Erik Brannstrom, 2nd Round Pick (2020)
Ryan O'Reilly
Position: Centre
Age when traded: 27 years old
Cap Hit at time of trade: $7.5M AAV
Years remaining on contract: 6 Years
Points per game for the 3 seasons preceding trade: 0.79 PPG
Traded from/to: BUF to STL
Traded for: Vladimir Sobotka, Patrik Berglund, Tage Thompson, 1st Round Pick (2019), 2nd Round Pick (2021)
Max Pacioretty
Position: Left Wing
Age when traded: 29 years old
Cap Hit at time of trade: $4.5M AAV
Years remaining on contract: UFA Year (last year)
Points per game for the 3 seasons preceding trade: 0.74 PPG
Traded from/to: MTL to VGK
Traded for: Tomas Tatar, Nick Suzuki, 2nd Round Pick (2019)
Matt Duchene (Part 1)
Position: Centre
Age when traded: 26 years old
Cap Hit at time of trade: $6M AAV
Years remaining on contract: 2 Years
Points per game for the 3 seasons preceding trade: 0.66 PPG
Traded from/to: COL to OTT
Traded for: Kyle Turris, Andrew Hammond, Shane Bowers, Conditional 1st Round Pick (2019), 3rd Round Pick
Matt Duchene (Part 2)
Position: Centre
Age when traded: 28 years old
Cap Hit at time of trade: $8M AAV
Years remaining on contract: 6 Years
Points per game for the 3 seasons preceding trade: 0.76 PPG
Traded from/to: OTT to CBJ
Traded for: With Julius Bergman for Jonathan Davidsson, Vitaly Abramov, 1st Round Pick (2019), Conditional 1st Round Pick (2020)
So what does our JT Miller look like compared to these guys?
JT Miller
Position: Centre
Age when traded: 28 years old
Cap Hit at time of trade: $5.25M AAV
Years remaining on contract: 2 Years
Points per game for the 3 seasons preceding trade: 0.98 PPG
So there we have it. JT Miller has the highest PPG average compared to all of the above. He also has the 2nd lowest cap hit, but has 2 years left rather than a UFA year. I'd also say that a centre will naturally be worth more than a winger.
In my opinion based on the above, fair value for JT Miller would be a package that includes:
1. An NHL ready player that is a capable top 6 forward or top 4 defenceman
2. A top tier prospect
3. A 1st Round Pick
Thoughts?
My first thought, I'm not interested in the Canucks trading Miller.
My second thought is, at a glance, that quality does not equal quantity, I don't like any of the returns for the big ticket item being acquired (yes, there were factors beyond the players involved, like cap). I would hope that the Canucks could get a far greater return than that seen in the samples.
The third thing would be that the Canucks should make it very clear that, at least for this TDL, nobody has the Canucks over a barrel. The Canucks can trade Miller, or not, and maybe they might not even trade him at the next TDL (assuming a good contract).
My fourth thought, if another team wants Miller then they will literally have to overpay. Dangle a 1st? Sure, but put a number of conditions on it which favour the Canucks. Why trade for a 32nd OA pick? Maybe even an additional high pick could be in the picture.
My fifth thought, why would the current Canuck players like it that the team traded a player who made this team better right now, for picks/prospects who may improve the team 3 - 5 years from now, or for a supposedly NHL ready player, that if they were good, then might they not already be playing on the other team's roster?
regards, G.
-
3 hours ago, J.I.A.H.N said:
Not a proposal per say, but I really want to push the narrative for sure.................
I started to print that we have never to my knowledge, sold high of one of star players, nor have we ever intentionally tried to control our own destiny...............
What I mean by this is we have never knowingly tried to "Tank" that I am aware of?
Now, since I started thinking about both of these premises, I realized that yes, we had in fact, sold high, with great success.................
Cory Schneider for New Jersey's 9th over all..............well how did that work out for us? I ask, tongue and cheek. Yes, it was a incredible success!
Horvat has been a top end staple ever since!
Now, the second part of this is what happens if we were to sell high on a player of Millers stature, within the Canuck frame work...................
Well, IMHO, we sag, but obviously not to the bottom, but maybe far enough to pick another difference maker................
Now, as most team's competing for the Stanley Cup will not trade top player for top player, it becomes very obvious that a trade of this stature is a futures trade for the Canucks.
Schneider , and 2022 1st, plus, or Barron, and a 2023 1st, plus ..............both fit the bill, to a large degree...............and what is the plus?
Is there other RHD prospects out there that fill the requirement? And if so, who are they?
Anyways, the other fringe benefit is that we either fall somewhat, short term, or plateau for the remainder of the year, but in any case, we benefit from the trade in several ways.
It is not simply "Tank" for a better prospect, but rather a multiple pronged move that benefits us, long term, and is more inline with our young core.
The question, is, like so many proposals, is, do we trade Miller for the "RIGHT" assets? Can you accept this as a good management decision?
Please vote, and comment........
Thanks!
I'm not particularly invested in the Canucks trading Miller. This being said, if the Canucks were to trade him at this TDL:
1.) Why trade Miller for what could be a 32nd OA? If a first is involved in the return, then there would have to be a condition (or two). The Canucks get a choice of the other team's 1st, this year or next. Further, should the Canucks exercise their option to take the other team's 2023 1st, and the other team get a second 1st (for 2023), the Canucks could take the higher of those two picks.
2.) Other options related to picks - if the other team trades Miller (next year), the Canucks get a 2nd.
3.) Why do people want picks or prospects who are a year of more away from playing in the NHL (assuming they make it to the NHL)? I'd want the Canucks to deal with a team who has young, active roster NHL players. TB is one possibility (they have enough "depth" to be able to shift some pieces, The Rangers could work, but they are still kind of young as far as the age of target players.
4.) No cap retention.
5.) Have a contract coming back with similar cap/term? Sure, as long as it's attached to a decent player.
There's probably other things that could be included.
regards, G.
[GDT] Feb 8th Coyotes Vs Canucks 7pm PST on SN
in Canucks Talk
Posted
I miss the Phil Maloney style of motivational speaking::
:As a coach, Maloney was able to instill a sense of discipline and work ethic, and he kept players on their toes, developing a reputation as an impulsive man with a flair for dramatics. After a loss one evening, he tried to get his team’s attention by pulling the pin on a grenade and tossing it into the dressing room. It was just a prop, but it did the trick."
regards, G.