Schedule

June 19, 2019

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

People do care, actually. It nearly turned into a disaster but luckily it's done. But to be fair you don't care about pipelines the cpc built.

To be fair they never actually elected that government.

No it's not.

Hippy is so unbelievably clueless you just have to ignore what he says and laugh it off, kind of like the village idiot. Constantly talking out of his backend but fully buying into his own BS.

NEP.....haha...wow...."follow your advice forsberg"....Laugh it off. :sadno:

June 18, 2019

27 minutes ago, BPA said:

The existing pipeline is transporting refined products.

The NEW pipeline is not.

The current one is busy being filled up with heavy since it’s where the

money is. When the NEW one is built it will be able to fill the heavy supply. Thus allowing the existing one to ship more refined product lowering gas prices from the new refinery being built.

The caveat is Alberta can determine what product is being moved. But the proposed scenario was the old pipeline would become the refined pipeline. And the new one would be the heavy one. But as I said. It would be a waste of 9.7 billion (spent on the refinery) for Alberta to not ship that refined product to BC

June 18, 2019

1 hour ago, BPA said:

From the Transmountain website...

The existing pipeline will carry refined products, synthetic crude oils, and light crude oils with the capability for heavy crude oils

The new pipeline will carry heavier oils with the capability for transporting light crude oils.

So again... how does a new pipeline reduce gas prices?

What do you think refined products is? Lol.

June 14, 2019

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

What about the ISS, McKenzie and THN etc...I noticed you only went with guys that had him low ha ha.

Mckenzies not a scout. His list is based on a compiling of what he hears from other GMs. And he had Bouchard at 7.

Ryan Kennedy at THN also had him at 7.

ISS was the scouting one scouting service that had him at 6th.

So im not quite sure where you are getting this idea that he was predicted to go 6th unless you were putting all your stock into one scouting service.

Quote

That’s ok pretty much all those guys were all over the board including Hughes, Dobson and Boqvist. I prefer to go with the scouts themselves and organizations that ask a group of scouts to rank them (THN had him at 6, second best behind Dahlin)

Nope. They had him 7th, 4th d taken after dahlin, boqvist and hughes.

https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/final-2018-draft-rankings-these-go-to-120

Quote

and the ISS who’s jobs is to make the rankings based on scouts, rather then media types that use their gut but don’t actually spend the time to evaluate them (pro scouts do).

ISS has pettersson at 20th and liljegren at 8th. in 2017. You probably shouldn’t be putting all your marbles into them.

https://www.isshockey.com/iss-hockey-releases-final-rankings-in-2017-nhl-draft-guide/

Quote

...

You’re putting way to much emphasis in that list. Craig button doesn’t even have Bouchard is the top 50.

https://www.tsn.ca/top-50-nhl-affiliated-prospects-1.1241869%3ftsn-amp

June 14, 2019

23 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Don’t be like that. He was predicted to go around 6 last year, EDM didn’t even have a jersey ready for him because they had zero belief he’d still be available. If you’d like I could waste some time quoting what ISS, THN, SN, McKenzie and others thought of him but I won’t given it’s obvious your personal opinion of him doesn’t line up with what the experts said at the time.

I have to disagree, Bouchard wasn’t ranked that high.

Chris Peters (ESPN) has him ranked 9

Cam Robinson (Dobber Prospects) had him at 15

McKeen had him at 8

Hockey Prospect had him at 10

Craig Button (TSN) had him at 9

Cory Pronman (theathletic) had him down at 18

Lepage (NHL) had him at 10

Kimelman and Morreale (NHL) had him at 7

Bouchards biggest knock was his lack of care. He was a known floater in his own zone and often looked disinterested and care free. Oilers biggest need is a PMD who can transition the puck up to McDavid quickly. Bouchard isn’t really that good of a fit honestly. Oilers could have really used a guy like boqvist. But they are bringing in Joel Persson who is also a known Right shot PPQB. So I don’t know if I’d be banking on Bouchard sticking with the oilers this next season.

June 10, 2019

3 hours ago, aqua59 said:

That can be said for any organization. Not everything stated was wrong, just too personal for me not to take it with a grain of salt.Now I fully agree that stating that Holland "destroyed" Detroit hockey is hilarious. Every GM inherits the good and the bad of the previous regime. However, over the latter part of his tenure in Detroit his record has been a joke.

He was gm of the teams for over 22 years. In his last 10 years the team made the post season 7 times with four 100 point seasons.

Detroit also just entered the rebuild mode in 2017 in which he’s done a really good job supporting by acquiring assets.

In 2017 the wings made 11 selections (6 picks in the top 90)

in 2018 the wings made 10 selections (7 in the top 90).

This year he’s left the wings with another 10 selections (5 in the top 90)

thats more top 90 picks in his last 3 years than JB has made total since coming here.

June 9, 2019

12 hours ago, nucklehead said:

Jim Costa of ESPN Michigan disagrees (strongly) https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/this-man-destroyed-my-hockey-team-for-a-decade-ken-holland-ripped-by-espn-sportscasters/wcm/1587c8ca-70b2-4992-8227-5ae295d666a4?fbclid=IwAR0u18zxrLNtgazbJjyb5qHctvgOw2O8fky8CwHF_93IZcdlq879z9X_FU0

Jim Costa is an idiot, if he thinks winning the Central Division ten times, the regular-season Conference title five times, the Presidents' Trophy four times, the Stanley Cup three times, and winning more regular-season games and postseason games than any other NHL team during his span as "destroyed" hockey then he needs to take a look around the league. The guy comes off as a spoiled 5 year old.

June 7, 2019

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

But some positions are harder to learn. The nuances for example of the centre position normally takes a long time to master - and being a winger is considerably easier. I would expect that being a PWF may be part of this discussion - knowing when to be aggressive and when not to be. Virtanen shows great speed, but he needs to coordinate this with his physicality.

I agree that some positions take longer to learn but PWF isn’t one of them. They already have the physical tools and don’t require high hockey sense to be effective at their role. There’s a reason why players more physically developed make the NHL quicker than those who aren’t.

In order for something to be valid, data would need to back it up, you need evidence to support it and that’s what I’m debunking.

The problem I see is people try to use those outliers as reasoning on why jake “could” become more. Don’t trade jake he could become the next Tom Wilson or johan franzen.

But that same logic could be used for every type of skill set. Don’t give up on Sven he could be the next naslund, karlsson or Oates. Don’t give up on Schroeder. He could have been st.louis, gourde, Atkinson. Don’t give up on gaunce. Beagle didn’t play full time till he was 27.....etc.

PWF are not more the norm than any other positions. Development is based on the individual. If it was truly the norm you wouldn’t have higher percent of PWF’s who developed prior to 24 than after.

June 7, 2019

30 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Tom Wilson had 7 goals combined over his first two full NHL seasons (149 games played), and didn't score more than 14 until after he was 24. I doubt there is a team in the NHL that would not put Tom Wilson into their lineup in a heartbeat now.

Martin St. Louis had a career total of 4 goals up until he was 25, he’s a hall of gamer. Posting a few outliers does not make it the norm.

Quote

I don't think Jake is as wired to be "truculent" as Wilson is but I also think Jake has better offensive upside and is also a far better skater. I think if Jake understood how intimidating he can be in a straighter line towards the net AND if given better linemates (which will occur as the team continues to improve),

Wilson constantly plays on the edge. Mostly because he’s a the meat head type dragging his club and doesn’t know where the line is. (And that’s not to be taken negative as he’s extremely effective at what he does). But jake doesn’t have that same level in him. His intensity level isn’t always on high. That’s not to say jake can’t be more productive, since I think he can, but it really comes down to jake as an individual building confidence and really has zero to do with his style of play being slower at developing.

Quote

I can see Jake's production bottom line improving and perhaps quite considerably. It is certainly not a lock that Jake Virtanen becomes a top six dominant winger in the NHL but I still think those who have said "no way" at his age and his progression are simply ignoring his toolset AND precedence set by a number of other bigger guys who simply took longer to figure the pro game out.

But thats simply not true. Thats a myth myth that I have proven to be false over and over. If you are to split PWF’s into 3 groups

A )never panned out

b ) started producing at the age of 24+

c ) started producing prior to turning 24.

B would be a small blimp compared to A & C. Again using the odd outlier doesn’t make it a precedent. Every single skillset has that outlier at the same rate as PWF. This is a fact backed up by numbers not opinion biased which is where the myth started from

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Goalies are typically the latest of all FTG. I still will agree to disagree with you. The database I am using has players by position and type of player in that position and the players that one can reasonably call "power forwards" over the past 20 years tend to develop to their "peak/plateau" roughly 1.5 to 2 seasons after smaller forwards.

I’m going to call BS. Im sorry but your data base should be thrown in the trash. You just finished quoting Simmonds and Jamie Benn as late bloomers. A simple look up at them shows how incorrect that is. Also peak and plateau mean completely different things than simply breaking out. So maybe that’s where you misunderstanding comes from.

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

There has been lots of chatter/debate as to why these trends and most agree that goalies is simply due to the nature of the game and that in the couple of decades, changes in the game at the NHL level have outpaced changes in development leagues to the point where goalies almost have to relearn their craft in terms of what will lead to success.

Chatter. It’s not rocket science. Goalies need high end mental strength, very few teens have that, it grows with maturity which is why they don’t jump into the league at younger ages. Also add in limited number of positions and turnover.

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

For power forwards - all sorts of theories.....none are totally right nor wrong. My personal view is some guys grow up being a man among boys and shortcuts in the brain happen and all of a sudden everyone is bigger and stronger and things you could "cheat" and do you have to relearn whereas a smaller guy has figured out how to work in heavy going and getting to the NHL is simply more of the same, just a bit faster.

Again your buying into a myth that factually proven false. There are more power forwards that break out prior to 24 than there are that take longer. Once you actually start looking into accurate data you will start to understand. Until then your more than welcome to by into a theory that’s been debunked over and over.

June 7, 2019

5 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Part of their success is/was inevitably dependent on the team that they are playing on as well.

Some names that stick out were Iginla (when Calgary was competitive), Lucic (Boston) and Todd Bertuzzi (right place/right time, but even he didn't blossom right away). Brady Tkachuk is an exception to the list I provided, which arguably could be explained that he had more ice time. He ranked 5th on an OTT team, playing with Mark Stone (who's showing that he is an incredible talent). It's not to take away from Tkachuk's skill and work, but there are more factors at play that influence not only how PWF performs but all other positions too.

That’s the point. I’m not stating jake can’t breakout some day, just debunking the old age myth that PWF take longer to develop. Players develop at different ages regardless of there position.

My reply last time rob posted this provided a bunch of examples of small skill players that didn’t break out until after 25. I’m sure I can come up with a list of goalies, offensive dmen, playmaking centers, scoring wingers etc.....it has zero to do with their skill set and everything to do with how each individual develops on there own path.

June 7, 2019

42 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Those players didn't have issue with "learning to be a pro". A lot of them play with lots of intensity. Virtanen can play with intensity, but rarely does it. JV has already been in the AHL for 1 year and the NHL for 3 full seasons now.

Wayne Simmonds was already a force for LA in 09-10. 40 points and was very noticeable during the series against the Canucks.

Blake Wheeler at draft+4 put up 45 points. Jamie Benn at 22 has already put up 41 points and was over PPG in the AHL playoffs and almost helped the Texas Stars to claim the Calder Cup. Mark Stone may have taken 4 years to be a regular NHLer... but that season he posted 64 points in 80 games... and prior to that he put up 79 points in 91 AHL games. JT Miller was already a PPG player in the AHL before graduating to the NHL with 43 points at draft+4. Tom Wilson isn't as offensively gifted, but he has been a constant physical force... something JV hasn't been.

So yeah.... power forwards do develop quickly. Within 3-4 years. No matter how often you stay otherwise won't change the facts.

Jamie benn put up 41 points as a 20 year old, at 21 he had 56 points in 69 games.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bennja01.html

Evander Kane at 20 had 30 goals and 57 points in 74 games.

Jerome Iginla at 19 had 50 points

Brady Tkachuk at 19 had 45 points in 71 games

Milan Lucic at 20 had 42 points in 72 games,

Alex Tuch who's the same age as VIrtanen just finished putting up 52 points in 74 games.

Chris Kreider at 22 had 37 points in 66 games,

Boone Jenner at 22 had 49 points in 82 games

Dustin Brown at 22 had 46 points in 81 games

Todd Bertuzzi at 20 had 39 points in 76 games

Brandon Dubinsky at 21 had 40 points in 82 games

Rob knows he's full of BS on this. PWF do not take longer to develop than any other type of skillsets, people pulling the odd late bloomer doesn't make it the norm it can be done with any position.

June 3, 2019

1 hour ago, thejazz97 said:

Easy to tell other ther people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Much harder to do in practice.

Been there done it, all my siblings have done so, including my old man who grew up even poorer in small town Alberta, my Grampa was a simple farm hand with nothing to call his own. Wife's been there and done it as well and she did it raised completely by a single mother (her dad took off before she was born and they never got a cent of help from him). My brother in law also been there and done it, he was raised by his two Korean immigrants parents, that barely spoke any english.

Quote

Minimum wage in Saskatchewan is roughly $11. Say you luck out, and find a job for $11/hr at 40 hrs a week. That's $880 biweekly, and subtract taxes, union dues (if any), and you're looking at roughly $770/paycheque. We'll say $1600/month, to be generous. Rent? You'll be lucky to find a place that's less than $500, so we'll use that as a generous baseline. Car? $110/mo for licensing. Gas? We'll put it at a generous $40/mo. Phone? $75 after taxes, if you're incredibly lucky. Nearly everywhere requires you to have a phone and/or email address. Food? Let's be conservative. Our example isn't eating healthy. $100/mo. Heating? Electric? Water? Combined, it's $200/mo. I think that's dipping by a little bit, but we'll assume they cut down on everything - showering, flushing the toilet, brushing teeth to save money.

1600 (500-110-40-75-100-200), that leaves you with $600 a month (7200 a year) in savings. In a year or two if you work hard you will be getting a raise and building up your value. Perhaps you get a GF and you two decide to move in to a nicer $800 per month place and she pays half which saves you even more money. And that's the start, it takes hard work and some dedication but people need to build themselves up. Then perhaps at the end of 50+ years they retire and have some money and good life experience to share with their kids.

Quote

This is a person who's never taken sick time, place of living and car functions perfectly with nothing ever breaking (assuming they found their car for free as well), never needs an oil change for their car, haven't counted wifi, clothes, they don't have family, kids, doesn't have depression or anxiety from not being able to do anything, doesn't need to spend money on education, dental, medication, has perfect insurance on everything, perfect eyesight, and never goes anywhere or does anything to actually live life outside of work.

See this is one thing i don't emphasize for. Outside of being raped, no one forced you to have kids. My wife and I waited 7 years before we were more financially secure before we even thought about trying for kids. Mean while I have a friend that is on there 4th kid who've they've set up a go fund me for to help support them.

Quote

Now, I've used extremely conservative estimates for spending and a higher estimate for wage. Now, this person does have roughly $600 to spend on extra food, higher rent, clothes, wifi, emergency money, medication, and whatnot. I've overestimated wages by $60, and a lot of places will only give 37.5 hours a week. That's $100/mo. So now you're down to $440. That's $220/paycheque, and we still haven't counted education (if that's a factor), wifi, higher rent, clothes, or emergencies, or having friends.

$220 is still 3k a year. But let's be real that's simply starting out wage and people with limited skillsets, Once you The majority of these people are under 25 and still living with their parents. Also when you are starting off you need to have sacrifice, no one gets to the top without putting in some effort. Also 37.5 is nothing. I'm still working 50-60 hours per week, it's sacrifice and a choice i'm willing to make for the betterment of my family and hopefully in the next couple of month it pays off with a new venture i'm working on. Many of my friends at 18 moved away to go up north and make big money working on the rigs. They gave up 2-4 years of their lives but came back with a huge financial boost. Or heck family member of mine decided to go into optometry and take on a huge loan, that's 8 years of non stop schooling, a huge debt and zero life. That's a lot of sacrifice but in the end, after another 5- 10 years of hard work and starting up a practice of his own, he now would be labelled in the "rich" group. That's a lot of sacrifice people did to get to where they are and now you are telling them. "Sorry, you have more than you need. Those same kids that you graduated with who decided to party their life away and make bad financial choices... yeah you need to give them a chunk of your hard earned money."

Quote

I'm not against opening up healthcare to private competition, as long as socialized healthcare remains in place with the same cost to the public as it is now.

I'm open to that. We're already seeing a large amount of albertans heading across the boarder south to beat the wait line even though it costed a lot more up front

Quote

Your mom-&-pop shop is just looking to make a living. Local businesses are not the enemy. While I may have unintentionally included them when I said "businesses", notice how I've never attacked small businesses directly - it's the opposite, I think we need to support small businesses, absolutely. Corporations, especially national corporations and MNCs, are ultimately swayed by profit.

Most businesses even local businesses are incorporated, profit is was keeps companies afloat but it also doesn't mean they become unethical, that's a big generalization. With media being so powerful companies are walking on eggshells making sure they don't do something wrong or something that can be construed as negative. I look at a company like WestJet that just bought out and media comes out with made up lies on there opinion piece articles that talk about how the transaction with Onex is negative.

Quote

Look at SNC-Lavalin. Look at Bombardier. Look at Amazon. Do you think these companies care about ethics over profit? No, they'll only do what's ethical or benefits society when it's profitable. How many companies supported gay rights before it was legalized? How many companies stood up against climate change 20-30 years ago? A small percentage. Now? Commonplace.

There's hundreds of thousands of big companies, sure some walk the line of bad intensions but again that's a big generalization. How many people stood up for those top points 20-30 years ago. Times change, you can't hold something against a company because the worlds morals have changed, how many CEO's have changed in that same time frame?

Quote

And I do agree. Governments are not normally ethical. But they aren't working for a profit, and that takes money out of the equation. Want to ban lobbying? Great, let's do it. Increase penalties for bribery, sure. And yes, I'm aware of the Trudeau-Aga Khan incident.

We're speaking on Canada, no? Why do we talk about Africa?

Because this is a discussion of helping out poverty and how rich people have more than they deserve, enough to give away to those who need it. Do starving kids in Africa have less value?

Quote

And if you say they think we could live without it, why do you cry out when someone says we need higher taxes on the richer people in the country?

Because, I think regardless someone you or someone else having the opinion that others of "have more than needed", it's still no reason to take/steal from that person earned wealth.

Quote

It's almost like someone didn't read what I wrote later on you need to do both. Find the middle ground, where you can both have a stable society and one which is forced to innovate.

A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. - Friedrich A. Hayek

Quote

And it's not freedom. People who are born into poverty will most likely stay there. And that's not because of a poverty mindset. It's because working your way out of it, while better than in America, is still insanely tough.

Life isn't easy, this goes back to the entitlement mentality. Just because you are born doesn't mean

IF you want to leave poverty make some smart life choices.

Start with, Working full-time, graduated high school. and wait until you are married and at least 21 to have a child.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

Quote

Then there's an issue we can both agree on - we need proportional representation.

Governments can tell pretty quickly when there's backlash - take Doug Ford's PCs, for instance. Elected with ~40% of the vote, formed a majority, and started finding "inefficiencies", proposing to slash things like anaesthesia for colonoscopies and funding for children with autism. Sam Oosterhoff, who's the massive idiot I'd probably be if I was the same person I was five years ago, found out pretty quickly that women didn't want their reproductive rights taken away.

As well, if a government still won't listen to the people, there's always the ballot boxes every ~4 years.

Oh, so they are about the money. Seems pessimistic

Sure they are because money makes the world go round. The world isn't some fantasy land where everyone does things out of the good of there hearts, it's funny you no longer believe in god because religion is really the only other factor that makes people have drive in something, and that something tends to be helping out others.

Quote

I'm not looking for dead equal, and I think anyone who is is dumb, because again, Harrison Bergeron, but somewhat closer to equal would be better.

We agree on equal opportunity, but lots of people still aren't even given that to begin with.

Regardless of your opinion on Prager, this vid does a pretty good job sums up my thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfE_BrnP5fg

June 2, 2019

6 hours ago, thejazz97 said:

See, but a lot of people are set at a disadvantage in the first place by being born into poverty or poor conditions.

But that doesn't mean you are stuck in poverty, it's extremely easy to leave poverty without any form of gov't assistance. The victim mentality doesn't make you stronger, it holds you back and keeps you in a cycle of poverty.

Quote

Right, but it doesn't even have to be "the needy" getting "handouts". It can be investments into health, education, roads and highways, supports for people in poverty, supports for young families, or anything else. The "needy" vary from situation to situation.

But as I pointed out earlier. Alberta already spends a ton of money on healthcare and doesn't see the results. Competition creates the most efficient practices, as it becomes, improve your competitive advantage or fall behind. I'm for helping out people but that line is very short, the more you give gov't control the more that line grows, grows and grows.

Quote

If that happens, new businesses will generally take their place. It might take a couple years, but generally, if there's a role that needs to be filled, the market will fill it.

See, if businesses were ethical, I could believe that. But businesses will generally only be ethical if it helps their profit margin to do so. Oil companies have known about climate change since the 80s, but they buried it because they could make money off it. Philip Morris International has sued entire countries for trying to cut down on smoking, and now they're promoting a smoke-free planet.

That's a very pessimistic view on things and unfortunately it's quite wrong. It must be a sad and depressing world to walk into your local business and think owners are evil and only looking to screw you over for an extra buck. Are their unethical businesses? sure there are, but the denominator isn't business/corporations = evil. The denominator is humans and last time I checked humans are also in charge of the gov't. The benefit of business power, is when people have the freedom and ability to choose alternative options those business either need to adapt and change or they go under.

Flip that statement, if governments were ethical, you'd so some better example of socialism succeeding. You some aspects that have worked but that's about it.

Quote

It really just depends on what kind of society you're trying to create - if all you're caring about is growing society, then less government interference is better. That being said, you'll have more people in poverty, and that causes systemic issues. If you're wanting to maintain a stable society, then you raise taxes on those who can afford it, and provide adequate benefits for those who need it.

Again, who determines what is the level of "can afford it". That's such a messed up way of thinking look around the world, you are in the top 1% of the world. How much of your income do you give to starving kids in Africa? Because i'll tell you that 99% of the think you have they would they would tell you, you could live without.

Quote

This provides a stronger safety net and an overall healthier society. However, it provides less growth. For this reason, among others - and this was found by the Saskatchewan courts - the federal carbon tax is a regulation. And having regulations in place forces businesses to innovate. I'm aware of biodiesel semis - this move forces change into that direction.

Anyone that wants a stagnant "stable" society isn't very forward thinking. Imagine where this world would be without that driver of success that creates innovation. IF you think gov't regulations is driver of innovation you might need to rethink that one.

Quote

Now, obviously, the goal is to provide balance. You don't want to have growth at the expense of the least wealthy (looking at you, Sask Party), and you don't want to have higher taxes with no growth (looking at you, Sask NDP). The goal is to meet somewhere in the middle. But businesses do need to be taxed and they do need to be regulated - corporations, at the very least. I'm in favour of less taxes on agriculture and small businesses.

But balance removes freedom. Not to side track this but line of thinking is very similar to any AI movie you see where the robots want to take control. Is that really what you want?

Quote

Government is supposed to be by the people, for the people. If they get involved, it's in the interest of the people to do so. Now- I do say supposed. Obviously, given the effect lobbying has, we don't get the government always acting in the best interests of the people. At the same time, what's in the interest of the majority isn't in the interest of all the people. But government does have to set a direction for the way they want the country to go, and if businesses aren't following it on their own free will, then that route has to be set for them.

But gov't don't speak for the majority. They take power with 30-35%, that is not the majority. And then we are starting to see the power of media who's learnt that the louder you speak the more influence you have on those decisions.

Quote

People have cried that the abolition of slavery and child labour would affect businesses so much they'd have to move or close. Maybe some did, but business is still around in a big way. People have cried that the creation of weekends would shutter businesses. Maybe some did, but business is still around in a big way. People have cried that the institution of a minimum wage and various other labour laws would be the end of business. It wasn't and isn't. Point is, businesses evolve and adapt to match the conditions of where they are (unless you go to pure, unbridled communism - which we shouldn't )

Businesses evolve because they are after the goal of having financial success. Take away that benefit, focus on equal outcome and you lose the driving factor. This idea that equal outcome is what's fair is honestly just pure stupidity, fair to whom......

June 2, 2019

1 hour ago, thejazz97 said:

My biggest point is people shouldn't be working 2-3 jobs to barely live.

People aren't forced to do that. And that’s the entire point. People feel so entitled. No one is forcing you to try and afford to live downtown Vancouver, Toronto, if your skill set doesn’t allow you to live comfortably you have so many other options. Moving to a cheaper location is one of them. Improving your education, skillset/value is another. Reaching middle class is extremely easy to do with making basic and simple smart choices.

im all for helping the needy. Just not by giving out handouts.

1 hour ago, thejazz97 said:

. Now, if you want to go down the road of UBI, that's one thing, but apart from that, there's two options: lower taxes or maintain/increase taxes and provide more social programs.

Or if you raises taxes on the rich. Eventually they get fed up and move there business else where. My buddies law firm is experience that right now in Alberta with many of his clients closing down there Canadian offices. Those job losses are losses in taxes to support those social programs.

1 hour ago, thejazz97 said:

If you lower taxes, say just as an example, every single person in every tax bracket gets $100 "in their pocket" more than they would have had if they'd been taxed. But that's also $186.5m, which could be put to other things.

Or perhaps that $100 gets spent and taxes on gst plus also helps another business stay afloat which also provided more taxes.

I’m not really arguing for or against taxes honestly. Just showing you that it’s a lot more complex then a+b=c. Personally the less govt involvement in business the better the system works.

June 1, 2019

13 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

@thejazz97 Tell me what you think of this, I will also bring in @Jimmy McGill because also loves taxes, kind of like a chong conservative.

So what if we raised the gst to 10%? That should generate 30-40 billion annually and with that we have universal/national dental plan, pharmacare and daycare? Certainly the increased gst would cover that and then some. We could use the left over for investments for our military, green tech initiatives and lowering corporate taxes. Obviously I don't support taxes but these initiatives would put more parents to work, possibly cutting back a little on mass immigration. We would also have healthier children and our seniors would get the care they need.

The downside is places like BC and Sask with pst's at 7 and 6 percent that tax bill would start to get excessive for everyone outside Alberta.

Feel free to tell me what you guys think. @ForsbergTheGreat I know you're anti tax like myself could you be alright with a plan like this? Would either party propose it?

I came up with this idea a few weeks ago based on polls that showed strong majorities support have these programs but are people prepared to pay for them?

I'm about as anti tax as it gets mostly because I don't agree with the majority of places the gov't ends up spending the money. That's why I'm big in donating to charitable causes of my choice. I'd be much more inclined to set up a system where you get to chose which programs your tax dollars go (ie veterans, roads, healthcare). Also When the gov't is in control of where the money goes they have zero concern on efficiency and end up wasting a ton of money. Alberta is the perfect example, When it comes to healthcare Alberta is the highest per-capita spender yet we don't rank the highest, If we made smarter decisions (aka not https://www.cihi.ca/en/unnecessary-care-in-canada) we'd be able to spend billions else where. While many social policies have good intentions, they are easily abused and at a global scale, don't encourage competition/innovation and often end up spending a ton of wasted money.

People love to talk about the Scandinavian countries but often fail to realize that Norway has a lower top marginal tax rate to the US does. And the big kicker is that in Norway the people lower incomes on average have a higher income tax rate than US as well. They make most of their taxes on a similar system to like you propose. The more to spend/buy the more to pay in taxes. They do this through charging Value-added taxes (VATs) which does make every day items more expensive for all but it really makes it more fair to individuals regardless of your annual salary. Less opportunity to find tax loop holes and more focus on opportunity equality (not outcome equality)

On a side note, this idea that the rich don't pay their fair share is asinine. The top 20% already cover 87% of the total taxes paid do people really think that don't pay there fair share?. No offence but who is Jazz to tell people what is too excessive vs what is not needed. I'm sure many people in Africa would be appalled as what he deemed is reasonable (if you make over 34k you are in the top 1% income earners world wide). It's an emotional argument and it's saddening to think Jazz partied too hard in Uni and killed off all his brain cells. lol....just bugging you @thejazz97.

The idea stems from the claim that income inequality is a terrible thing and needs to be solved. My question is why? Inequality is a result of the individual choices and freedoms. You are free to make good decisions and bad ones. For example.. If you're taking for an exam, you study your butt off and that typically results in you getting a good mark, but if you decide to skip studying to go out an party all night, you likely get a bad mark. That's your freedom. So why should we punish the person who made the good choices to accommodate the person who didn't?

When people view the top 10%, they picture McScrooge who swim in pools of money in their secret rooms. People like to paint the rich with evil brush as if they simply screwed over others in order to get to where they are. That's such a misguided view though, as 99% of the time they get to where they go through smart life choices and lots of sacrifices. I just got out of a big business meeting last night where a dozen of the people there would be considered 1%ers. They are all under 40, highly intelligent, highly motivated people who've earned their way. And now they are looking to take that hard earned money and hopefully invest into the company i'm involved in, to make even more money.

May 26, 2019

On 5/23/2019 at 10:35 AM, Rob_Zepp said:

I think some of the bigger guys (guys who are men among boys growing up) take longer to hit their strides professionally. There are simply so many examples of such players not peaking under mid twenties and then maintaining nicely for a longer while than those who come out of the gate at 20-22 age range.

This myth has been debunked more than enough times. PWF don’t take longer than any other player take. For every bertuzzi, doan there’s 10 other Benn, Simmonds, Tuch. Iginla, Kane, Brown, who have all put up 40+ points before they were virtanen’s age. Heck Brady tkachuk as put up 45 points as a 19 year old rookie this season.

St. Louis, marchessault, gourde, and Atkinson, Zuccarello, Gionta all are small skilled players that didn’t put up big numbers until they 24+, guess that should mean that we shouldn’t give up on someone like goldy either as light skilled players clearly just tend to take longer to hit there stride..... I bet I could come up with similar lists for goalies/big and small defensemen/ or scoring wingers.

My point again, “PWF do NOT on average develop any later than any other skill set”.

May 26, 2019

On 5/23/2019 at 1:06 PM, Dazzle said:

How many points did Marchessault/William Nylander have before going to LV? Granted, it is an extreme example, but my point still stands.

Marchessault put up 30 goals and 51 points in Florida before he went to Las Vegas. And William Nylander plays in Toronto.

May 15, 2019

2 hours ago, mll said:

It wouldn't align though. MacIntyre says the Canucks are going to be aggressive in free agency. If he wants to invest high money in immediate help it sounds unlikely that he would bring in players who could drag the team down.

Isn't this the last year of his deal too.

Cap wise it’s not a huge add, if we’re sending out sutter and granlund caps while taking back lucic manning and puljujarvi. That’s equates to 3-4 million. And manning is in his last year so it’s off the books before EP gets a raise.

And if we move out LE in a seperate deal that leaves a big net gain in cap space. Which we would allow us to still go big in FA although I’m not sure that’s the route I would take.

May 14, 2019

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

We could also easily absorb any of their 3 D they also need to cap dump which is nice (if it helps move things along/gain additional assets). And they'd nicely fill holes on short terms (if vastly over priced) that we need to fill anyway. Russell could be our 3rd right D or Sekera/Manning could be our 3rd/4th left D.

It would be an interesting discussion of what fans would think if that's how Benning chose to 'spend' our cap space as it likely wouldn't leave a lot of room for UFA's. In that scenario. Even if that means burying Eriksson (and likely Lucic) in the minors (if we can't in fact move LE).

But yeah I could get on board for a future top 6 of:

Boldy (or other), Pettersson, Boeser

Pearson, Horvat, Puljujarvi

and a future D of

Hughes, Seider

Juolevi, Woo

Rathbone, Stecher

I also wonder if you’d then be able to flip some of those assets to avs for the 4th overall if byram is still there?

May 14, 2019

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I wasn't entirely opposed. But if we're taking on that awful contract , they gonna PAY.

As they should. And since he has a full NMC and Vancouver appears to be the only team he wants to go to + one of the few teams able to afford taking on that cap. Then we get to dictate a reasonable asking price... and my friend, it’s not going to be cheap like that oilers reporter insists on.

May 14, 2019

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

@ForsbergTheGreat the idea of trading for him and the 8th OA is definitely growing on me...

If we take on Lucic for 8th OA (assuming we can move Eriksson elsewhere) we could grab one of the forwards at 8 (Boldy/Dach/Turcotte/Krebs etc) and then 'reach' for Seider at 10...this would be a HELL of a good draft.

If we can also add Puljujarvi for reasonable cost.... all the merrier

I knew you’d come around. The closer we get to the draft the more appealing those extra first round picks become to fans like us. Even at the cost of taking on a lucic.

Boldy and a D sounds like a great first round if you ask me.

May 14, 2019

7 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

Nice score. Looks like Onex approached them in March and somehow they managed to keep it quiet.

Still have no idea why they'd pay a 67% premium when there's no other suitors.

Well you have to remember WestJet wasn't looking to sell, Onex approached WestJet since it fits well in their aviation portfolio. Ed Sims was really only willing to consider the offer if all the demands were met. Keeping the HQ in Calgary as well as making sure sale price was $31/per share helps keep the confidence strong with the employees since WestJet has a really good share option plan. I know a few of the employees who've been there a long time who've likely cashed big today.... retirement money big.

May 13, 2019

3 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

Didn't see this coming. Why the need to pay such a huge premium over Friday's close? ....

WestJet to be sold in $5B deal

Calgary-based airline will become a private company, owned by Onex Corporation, if approved by shareholders

WestJet says it has agreed to be acquired by Onex Corporation and will become a private company in a deal valued at $5 billion.

Under the agreement announced Monday, Onex will pay $31 per share for WestJet.

Shares in the airline closed at $18.52 on Friday.

Completion of the transaction is subject to a number of conditions, including court, regulatory and shareholder approvals.

Will be based in Calgary

A special meeting of shareholders is expected to take place in July to approve the transaction.

"I am particularly pleased that WestJet will remain headquartered in Calgary and will continue to build on the success that our 14,000 WestJetters have created," said Clive Beddoe, WestJet's founder and chairman in a news release.

"Onex' aerospace experience, history of positive employee relations and long-term orientation makes it an ideal partner for WestJetters, and I am excited about our future."

The deal comes after Onex approached the airline in March.

*******************************

Also, China retaliates in trade war with USA. Markets are not pleased.

A good day for me today. Just finished watching the town hall today. Seems like the deal was been worked on for the last 8 weeks. Glad I bought a couple hundred shares of westjet in December. Wishing I would have bought more.

May 10, 2019

27 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I have literally not argued any of that. But again. If they want to get away with a cheap cost to dump Lucic, that only comes in the form of taking salary back (Eriksson). There's literally no getting around that. Whether he particularly fits their team or cap needs or not. They're not in any position to argue that if they aren't willing to pay up in trade assets.

Im not saying you’re arguing. Just pointing out why them paying big on top of taking eriksson makes zero sense for them. If they were just going to get a wash back they likely simply keep lucic. Why would they pay a big sweetener only to put themself in the exact same situation.

As soon as you eriksson enters the return the value for the sweetener gets cancelled out. If you want a sweetener you can add a lucic equivalent.

They are far more likely to add a big sweeteners like 8th overall + puljujarvi to dump lucic if they can also get team needs in return.

Quote

Who said Goldy was better? It gives them one more shot at a cheap, potential top 6 player and reduces their losing JP.

The reason JP is on the rumour mill has a lot to do with the idea that he will get out perfomed by the names mentioned and for him to get waived. Goldy would be in the same spot. He doesn’t hold a lot of any real value.

Quote

No argument.

Eriksson is a better, more useful player (who can at least keep up with today's game), with one less year of term, no NMC/ED issue and at least some faint hope of still having 2nd line potential with the right line mates. We also have the leverage of having cap space and them desperately needing cap space and to put a contending team around McD. It's not equal.

Lucic is still effective at his role. We need a player like lucic far more than they need LE. The league is filled with LE equivalents that come at 1/4 the cost. UFA, waiver claims, trade throw in, LE doesn’t bring much to the table. Heck we’ve got about 4 of them. The only real benefit LE has is his signing bonus. But that’s only a benefit to teams that poor team need to make the cap floor. Oilers are not one of those teams thus squashes his advantage. They are dam near identical value. This different between them is about the same as a 7th round pick.

Quote

A top 10 pick, young potential top 6 W'er and short term D are exactly Canuck team needs.

Like i said. As soon as you added erikssons negative value you loose your sweetener. You are not getting puljujarvi, 8th overall and Russell for sutter retained. That’s pure asinine.

May 10, 2019

11 minutes ago, Provost said:

Yes,

I wouldn't be surprised if we could move Eriksson and Sutter to Ottawa for a pretty small sweetener. They need about 15 million to get to the floor and do need some useful veteran players.

If we could do that, in a separate deal we could easily absorb Lucic and get a much better sweetener back since we weren't sending back bad money.

Yep. I don’t see why it couldn’t be done. Even if we are adding a bit of sweetener on our end to move out LE. This team has a lot of filler and we need to start moving out some of the redundancies for more team needs.

Personally this summer I want to see sutter, eriksson, tanev and a few other of our middle 6 forwards moved out.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Blogs

Gallery

Posts posted by ForsbergTheGreat

WestJet to be sold in $5B deal

Calgary-based airline will become a private company, owned by Onex Corporation, if approved by shareholders

Will be based in Calgary