Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

ChuckNORRIS4Cup

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,300

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ChuckNORRIS4Cup

    [Official] Toronto Blue Jays Major League Baseball thread

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    It's possible....if I were Shatkins and the other GM said you need to throw Davis in to get this done, it would take me about a millisecond.....

    Or Shatkins sells it to them I will throw in Davis, he just hasn't had the opportunity here with the guys we have, I believe a fresh start and opportunity would do wonders for him, and with his speed he could really excel if given the opportunity to play everyday :lol:

    [Official] Toronto Blue Jays Major League Baseball thread

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

    Rosters are expanded in the postseason and if Dickerson gets healthy before then, Davis can be sent to AAA.

     

    I'm certainly not against trading him, I just don't see anyone giving us anything of value in return.

    Not straight up definitely no value, but that's why I suggested using him as throw in basically in a package deal to maybe help persuade the other team involved maybe

    [Official] Toronto Blue Jays Major League Baseball thread

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    I don't see much point in trying to move Davis, TBH...he makes basically nothing (about 600k) and can be sent down to AAA any time, IIRC. He'd be almost zero value in a trade, unless some team had a rash of OF injuries and needed a cheap replacement.

     

    I'd be inclined to hang onto him and use him much like Charlie has been so far this season. Late inning pinch running (sort of like Dave Roberts was for the Red Sox back in '04) or as a defensive replacement when you have a lead.....

     

    I've been on the dump Jansen bandwagon for a while now. he calls a decent game, but for my money, a major league catcher has to either hit .250, or have good power numbers.

    Depends on Dickerson, because if he becomes healthy enough there is absolutely no room for Davis and it's going to be interesting with the rest of the OF then as well, although I do like that pinch runner option with speed, but not enough imo to keep him because if they have to rely on his bat at any time, that could be bad and I wouldn't want that.

     

    The bat is the issue, especially when you're trying to win, you need a catcher who can hit and move the lineup back to the top and keep it going, that's what wins you playoff games, and he isn't good enough for that and why he needs to be moved.

    • Upvote 1

    [Official] Toronto Blue Jays Major League Baseball thread

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    I was looking at that. (or a similar site) They seem to have an awful lot of infield prospects. Other than Martin and (maybe) Groshans, I'd consider moving one of them, as well as any catcher not named Moreno....

    I'd move Davis if they can, he isn't amounting to anything imo, and I really don't like Jansen, I want him gone, although their value isn't high, maybe throw them into a deal to get a little more.

    [Official] Toronto Blue Jays Major League Baseball thread

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    I think what the Twinkies would be after is prospects....

     

    I'm not totally up on what the Jays' prospect situation is, but I recall reading an article by one of the Jays' beat writers (Shi Davidi, Ben Nicholson-Smith, not 100% sure) where they said the Jays can afford to move prospects.

     

    I think the one guy that I wouldn't move if I were Shatkins, is catching prospect Gabriel Moreno. He's still in AA, but he's tearing it up and looks like the best prospect the team has produced at that position in ages....

    Yeah same here on prospects but did hear or see that same thing you have mentioned regarding them, this management props did help fill them by the sounds of it. 

     

    This looks like a good place to start

     

    https://www.mlb.com/prospects/bluejays

    [Official] Toronto Blue Jays Major League Baseball thread

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

    Seeing a lot of talk about the Jays possibly being in on Nelly Cruz.....NC is up there in age, but is still hitting over .300 with good power numbers and OBP...

     

    One "insider" that I saw suggested the Jays might be shooting for a package of Cruz and lefty reliever Taylor Rogers, who has an ERA around 2.5 and a WHIP of just over 1.0 He also average a K per inning and strikes out over twice as many batters as he walks.

     

    Depending on the price, I like this deal. The Jays don't really need another bat, but can you imagine how scary that lineup would be with Nelson Cruz in the middle? :o

    Anytime you can make the lineup more deadly it's always interesting what if, but like you said they really don't need another bat they didn't need another bat in the off season when signing Springer imo, just pitching, pitching, pitching, that's all I want to see acquired going forward, but if it's a package like you're proposing and losing a weaker bat for that replacement as long as a pitcher is available sure.

     

    Wow he's 41 and hitting .299 pretty impressive actually at his age.

    Why we are never in the conversation for big name trades in the Benning era?

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

    I saw more brain cramps in his play than Meyers by a long shot. 

    Definitely early on in the season, he played horrible, fumbling the puck on his stick many times, couldn't make a pass, he did improve as the season went on, but it wasn't enough for me to go :frantic:, he definitely didn't impress me enough this season, so if he wants out I don't care he didn't impress me enough. 

    • Upvote 1

    Coronavirus outbreak

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted · Edited by ChuckNORRIS4Cup

    22 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

    Perhaps, but just as easily as it can weaken, it can also mutate in a way to give more adverse outcomes, either through increased virulence or by triggering a stronger (perhaps more lethal) response.  On the whole though, I see your point, and hope that if it mutates in such a way that it triggers a more lethal response, that its virulence isn't likewise increased.  In theory, one would expect it shouldn't - because the more severe the adverse outcome, the less opportunity it normally has to spread (because the host is often taken out before it can find new hosts to infect).

    What I tend to believe is our means of transportation are fueling the stronger mutations, which is prolonging it more. The more people who travel seem to either bring back, or bring a virus to a community, and the more they do that the more chances of it mutating into a stronger virus. I tend to believe this is what helped trigger the Spanish Flu, they were at war WW1, they were traveling and spreading the virus from other countries and making it worse, it wasn't until WW1 was over the following year the Spanish Flu finally went away after it weakened. I'm starting to lean towards after the war eneded the virus wasn't traveling as much now, and it just stayed in communities until it weakened and wasn't able to mutate with other strains of viruses anymore. 

     

    With saying this though and if some of my logic is kind of correct, that wouldn't be good for us, because our means of transportation are way more advanced then in 1918, and if we keep this up this virus could linger for way longer because of our transportation. 

    • Cheers 2
    • Upvote 1

    Coronavirus outbreak

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    1 hour ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

    Considering they're already talking about lambda (seemingly skipping over epsilon, zeta, eta, theta, iota, and kappa), I'd say the hits will just keep coming - until (as was mentioned by another poster in response to your post) enough effective vaccine goes into enough arms globally.

    I don't 100% agree with that, I believe looking back at history, Spanish Flu with no vaccine it eventually weakened and life went back to normal but with a big hit sadly with how many died, it was definitely a strong virus like the one we're dealing with now a days, but it eventually weakened to not be serious enough. Sars another example of a virus that wasn't as strong to start, but again weakened and went away without a vaccine, Mers another virus like Sars that went away without a vaccine. The trend does show they do eventually weaken enough and go away even without a vaccine, they didn't rely on a vaccine to stop it in the past, so I do believe it will weaken eventually it's just when really. 

    • Cheers 1
    • Vintage 1

    Coronavirus outbreak

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

    There will be more bad mutations until the developing world gets enough vaccines.

    Or maybe they will eventually mutate into weaker and weaker ones like in the past without vaccines.....

    • Vintage 1

    Coronavirus outbreak

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    4 hours ago, BPA said:

    Yep.  Layers of protection.

     

    I'm double vaccinated and I still wear my mask indoors.  Sometimes outdoors when I see other people wearing it (to ease their anxiety and in case they didn't get 2nd dose).  Plan to gradually reduce mask use.  Hopefully by September and have no mask.

     

     

    Good for you thumbs up.

     

    Yes hopefully by then things are looking good, we just have to keep an eye on this delta variant I believe first, and hopefully that will be the end of these bad mutations, as long as no other ones mutate we could be good, but that's still up in the air literally. 

    Olympic Discrimination?

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted · Edited by ChuckNORRIS4Cup

    I tried doing some looking at what the limit is, looks like in 2015 the IOC set the limit to 10nmol/L. The athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.

     

    But then in 2018 the IAAF separate from Olympics though, set this new rule.

     

    The regulations, proposed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) in 2018, state that women must have a blood testosterone level of 5 nmol/L or less at all times in order to compete.

     

    Doctors measure testosterone in nanomoles per litre (nmol/l) and the reported “normal” healthy range in males is anywhere from 9.2 to 31.8 nmol/L. It is about ten times lower in females, with “normal” levels considered to be between 0.3 and 2.4 nmol/L. Despite these lower levels in women, testosterone circulates in the blood at higher concentrations than oestrogen, the typical female hormone.

     

    But it is difficult to know what is the right level of testosterone, and these ranges are often not agreed on by experts from different societies, countries or laboratories.

     

    Now my question is what were these athletes nmol/L? It must of been pretty high...

    Coronavirus outbreak

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

    No, not sarcasm.  Masks protect others from infection more so than they protect the person wearing it, no?  That’s why I don’t get lifting the mask mandate until everyone has a chance at their second dose.  The antivaxxer and anti mask people (often who think Covid is a hoax and don’t believe in any restrictions) will now wander around maskless, and could spread disease to those who are waiting for their second shot - even though the person waiting for shot two is wearing a mask.  Isn’t that the science?  Maybe I forgot all this stuff already, but I’m keeping mine on anyway.  

    I do believe there is a strong argument for both tbh, I agree with what you're saying, and I strongly stand behind my stance on them as well, I believe both are valid for protection, hence why it's even more important to wear it. But it's also not 100% effective, depending on the mask for example N95 it says it's 95% effective, that means there's a 5% chance of breathing in something I would tend to believe it would be the same for breathing out, definitely would be good for someone who has the virus for cutting it down for being airborne after, but also gives you now a 95% chance of hopefully not catching the virus, which I believe is good as well. Either which way you look at it masking up until the virus is gone is the best measure to take, for your protection or protection of others.

    • Vintage 1

    Coronavirus outbreak

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

    How does wearing a mask protect the person wearing it?  Aren’t masks to protect others in case the person wearing one might be ill?  

    Is this sarcasm I really can't tell...

     

    But I'll say this, why do concrete finishers wear masks? How does it protect them?

    • Haha 1

    Coronavirus outbreak

    in Off-Topic General

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

    Tell that to Henry.  She seems to think that "zOMG must appeazzzzz duh masses, remove the requirement but ask nicely for them through a recommendsssssss"   :picard:

     

    Like I mentioned multiple times, they never learned from SARS, and erring on the side of caution isn't part of their S.O.P.  :rolleyes:

    Good thing SARS vanished and wasn't as bad as this one. The problem I don't like with Henry approach here is people who aren't vaccinated now don't have to wear a mask that's not good either.

    • Thanks 1
    • Vintage 1
×
×
  • Create New...