-
Posts
19,067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Junkyard Dog
-
I stated if buyouts happened and/or contracts were move that would be the roster I would go with. I still think buyouts are a possibility. We will see. If no buyouts then JB will have his hands full moving out contracts, it isn't impossible but would be hard. I feel we have a pretty good shot at Toffoli. Vancouver is a very enticing location, especially given our state as an up and coming team and his fit can't be denied. 30-33 isn't the retirement age usually for the majority and that certainly isn't too old. 35+ is old. Hell average players can still be in their prime till their early 30s. Older role players have been on every cup winning team. Goal is to keep trending upward while incorporating younger players on a year to year basis. As Gaud and Jake prove they can handle defensive responsibility than we can incorporate more younger forwards. What we don't want to see is us having to rely on Horvat's line too much defensively because Horvat's line are at their best when they're used in both ends, we need that in Gaud's line too. Hog/Pod could be just a year off and Lind will probably be a call up next year so now's the time to get Gaud and Jake on the PK and taking up more defensive roles. Once they become role players that can play in both ends we can move on from Beagle who's pretty much the stop gap for that to happen. Defensively We gotta see where Tryamkin/Rafferty/Brisebois are at next year because there are guys behind them (Rath/Woo/OJ) that aren't too far off and we could potentially draft another. We definitely should try to acquire another good top 6 D if possible. We need that sort of depth and can't afford to roll with a young 3rd pair if we want to make the playoffs and keep trending upwards. Our top 6 was trash this year and we were fortunate for our top 4 to not be too hurt all year which Myers/Hughes helped Tanev/Edler with.
-
Yeah he's not very close unless you consider very close 3+ years away. He's only got 34 games started as experience. Marky had 96 games started as a back up before he became a starter and he didn't break out as a great goalie till a couple years after he became a starter. So we're a ways away from Demko reaching that sort of level. Thankfully we have Marky in the meantime.
-
Maybe on the way to NA but if he comes here it's straight to Utica. We'd be fighting for playoff lives or maybe be playing in the playoffs and would have healthy bodies.
-
TBD
- 3,880 replies
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
If we get one or two compliance buyouts and maybe shed some contracts Miller-Petey-Toffoli Pearson-Horvat-Boeser Ferland-Gaudette-Virtanen Motte-Beagle-Mac Roussel Maybe Sutter/Leivo Under the assumption that Eriksson is gone, Ferland is healthy and we don't sign Leivo or get rid of Sutter. Might want to keep Sutter around for center depth over Leivo. With Ferland/Mac/Motte we have good grit in the bottom 6, which is needed. This would be the year to start giving Gaudette/Virtanen more responsibility since Sutter/Beagle won't be here forever. Edler-Myers Hughes-Tanev UFA(Dillon/Edmundson)-Tryamkin Rafferty Maybe Brisebois Benn would be traded and Fanta not re-signed. If we are gonna have 2 young extra D than the top 6 partner with Tryamkin has to be a good one that's where a Dillon or Edmundson would fit in. Having a good top 6 pairing would have a trickle up effect making our D-core much better and would be a safety net since a Dillon/Edmunson can step up and play more if a top 4 guy gets hurt. This would be the year to see if Tryamkin/Rafferty/Brisebois can make it or not. Overall with a deeper D-core, more experienced team and more physical bottom 6 I think we see us take another step next year with this roster.
-
Still rather have Tierney. Could definitely afford to give up a guy like Gaudette+ for him. Former teammate of Horvat too.
-
Has gone pretty well I do say so myself. One of the All-time Canucks just so happens to be mother Russia.
-
That 3rd line gets eaten up, taken advantaged of and destroyed in their own zone. Also you forgot about Motte and Ferland(if healthy) that bring that physical presence we'll need come playoff time.
-
We still have a couple Russians to sign bro hold your horses.
-
Eh I get where you're coming from but we definitely need all our Dmen to play special team roles. Otherwise more responsibility is put on fewer D. That's why Stecher's ice time is so low, he is hardly use on special teams. Hughes logs a ton of PP and O-zone time. And in Rafferty's defense he'd probably get 2nd PP time, which would free up Myers, but he probably should start as a 7th D anyway. Learn the ropes with the coaches, practice with NHLers and get some games. Same sort of concept they did with Mac who was pretty much groomed for a roster spot next year and was with the team most of this year.
-
I doubt the Sens have lost faith in White after one year. Still a young guy who had his first full year last year. Sure he had an off year with injury but Ottawa are an awful team too. We are definitely gonna have to add if we are gonna get rid of Eriksson in a deal. I doubt a team like Ottawa are just gonna take him off our hands for free. Cap relief is a market upon itself. If we're gonna try to clear cap for Eriksson and try get a player out of it I would much much rather go after Tierney. Might have to get up picks and prospects and a guy like Gaudette to do it but Tierney is likely better than Gaudette will ever be. He pretty much provides Gaudette level scoring 40-50 points but is as good very good on draws and on defense. Only a couple years older than Gaud too but if we really want to spend assets to get rid of Eriksson I would take the extra step and get a player that'd be a top 3rd line C in the league. We'd be set up for the next 5+ years down the middle. Hopefully we get a compliance buyout or two so we aren't stuck with Eriksson. Even then though if Tierney was on the block Benning should be all over that. He'd be a perfect fit here with how he plays and age wise.
-
From my understanding when people state guns don't kill people, people kill people they imply that the people that are behind the weapons are responsible for their actions. I believe they're defending that guns, in responsible hands, don't kill people. In that sense they are correct, though there's room for argument there with police shootings but then it becomes a policing topic. It could all be stemming from them feeling targeted and resorting to feeling and acting defensive toward the other side. It does seem like a defensive thing to state. All in all I have no issue with the statement. It can make sense when you break it down. If you are unaware of their meaning behind then you can be misunderstood. That's where going into further detail will help you understand. If people are just stating guns don't kill people, people kill people and add no evidence then I can agree if you have a problem with that. It can become a moot point which might be what you're getting at. You aren't gonna have a conversation with anyone that isn't gonna explain and get down to the details. Well then after you get passed that you can ask people kill people with guns how? You're perfectly fine with asking that question and any follow up question. Personally those are the questions I want to talk about because they help create dialogue that can help people agree or disagree and come to an understanding. It will help solve these issues. What kind of people use these guns? What crimes are committed with these guns? How are these guns acquired? Where do these guns come from? What is the best way to prevent people acquiring these guns or committing these crimes? So on and so on. These are the questions I want to have conversations about. A part of my opinion on this is why the ban first? IMO majority of reasonable people are gonna support a task force that stops illegal goods(especially guns) from crossing our border if the government decided to put more money toward it. Personally I feel like we resorted to a last resort first. I don't even have any guns and have only shot an air rifle when I was in cadets as a kid. I shouldn't have a strong opinion about this, even as a conservative. I just don't like the senseless discourse created by this ban when we could of went in a more productive direction first and foremost.
-
It does draw conclusions when you take a step back. They do go hand and hand though which is what people forget. You have to take into account context which really matters in what you're talking about. Look at Cars. People who do alcohol/drugs and decide to drive are driving impaired, these people get into car accidents, these car accidents kill people. These people are impaired/drunk drivers. Therefore drunk/impaired drivers kill people. Solution? Target drunk/impaired drivers and not people driving safely and responsible. Less drunk/impaired drivers then less car accidents, less car accidents then less people dying. Would we target people driving safely and responsible for drunk driving? No, because context matters. Majority of gun violence is committed with illegal guns. People smuggle these guns, people buy these illegal guns, people use these illegal guns to commit crime/acts of violence and crimes/acts of violence with guns tend to lead to people dying. These people are criminals. Therefore criminals are responsible for majority of gun violence either directly or indirectly. Solution? Target the criminals then less guns cross the border, then less guns get into criminals hands, then less guns are used in acts of violence. Target the people buying guns legally and..... how does that solve the issue? The answer, it doesn't or hardly scratches the surface to justify when there is a much more glaring issue standing at our feet. So yeah the same sort of statement can be used differently in situations because of the different set of context. You can draws similarities with certain situations when it makes sense. You can also ask for an elaboration when someone says people kill people and I am sure they'd give you it like I just did. All in all it is okay to say people kill people when it makes sense and it does with gun violence, as it does with various things. The question you should of asked is why do people kill people with ???, you're gonna get a different answer every topic. The way to stop this sort of violence should be the talking point.
-
He'll be 25 this month, year from now he'll be 26. If he was younger I would agree he could use another year but he's more make or break than anyone else in Utica or even in our prospect pool. If he doesn't make the team next year he never will. He'll get pushed down as more defenseman are drafted, signed from College/CHL and/or make the jump. He's not gonna get priority as a 26 year old over a lot more of the valued defenseman in our prospect pool. 7th defenseman would be a good place to start next year. He wouldn't be a regular but we gotta see where he is at. He'd get a similar treatment as Mac which worked out well, but I figure Rafferty would get more games.
-
Mike Tyson set to make comeback against Roy Jones Jr.
Junkyard Dog replied to cuporbust's topic in Off-Topic General
I mean if he's fully healthy and committed it would be a huge draw. Very few individuals in their 50s could compete. They should definitely do shorter rounds for him. Health and safety should be priority going in for him and especially for someone of his profile. -
Silver-lining with Leivo's injury is that he's gonna be cheaper to sign if we decide to re-sign. He was on pace for a 40-50 point season and would of been guaranteed 3M+ as a UFA. At this point the smartest move for him would be a show me deal. At 26 years of age a 1 year deal can still net him a long term deal afterwards if he proves capable. Whether that be with us is another question.
-
Mike Tyson set to make comeback against Roy Jones Jr.
Junkyard Dog replied to cuporbust's topic in Off-Topic General
I heard he was doing it to raise money for something. -
In a perfect world we'd probably re-sign Stech/Tanev, sign Tryamkin and get rid of Benn. We get a couple compliance buyouts and are able to move a couple contracts out(Sutter/Baer/Benn; who we don't buyout). Would give us a D-core of Edler-Stech/Myers Hughes-Tanev Tryamkin-Stech/Myers Rafferty Brisebois. I'd personally rather spend the cap we'd use on Stecher on a Edmundson/Dillon for the top 6 pairing though. Even with adding Tryamkin our D-core can use more physicality and toughness that can play well.
-
Unfortunately super left people can call Right-winged speakers, lets say like a Jordan Peterson(probably more libertarian than right) or a Ben Shapiro, people who promote hate speech, when in reality they both have stated separately that open dialogue and how they act in the real world is entirely different. For example, Peterson was asked once that if he had a transgender female as a student, with him being a professor, would he refer to her as a female and he said yes. Shapiro said something along the lines as if he went out to dinner with a trans female he would refer to them as female. I don't agree with everything they say, well with Peterson I agree a bit more(I think as a dude who helps men out he's an amazing speaker), but what they say shouldn't be considered hateful or what not when they're just having an opinion under open dialogue. That's where cancel culture does it bad. When in that sort of hypothetical I stated with the pastor they can do good. That's what worries me a little about the subjectivity on these laws on speech. Could they be used in a way that prevents dialogue by the super left or to be abused wrongfully? Most campuses are left already. Mainly though, as I have stated, I just don't see the point given where we are and how far we've come as a society. I have a lot of faith in society getting better and more accepting, there's evidence that we're ever-changing for the better. We live in the best era period where race, gender, whether your straight/gay/trans, has the most minimal effect and how far you can go as an individual. The onus is on you and you couldn't say the more you travel through the past. I feel like a more libertarian approach socially is how I view things should be and how things essentially are already but these laws are a step away from that.
-
IMO definitions are super important when it comes to law. When definitions are subject to change on a case to case basis I have an issue. By no means do I support what anti-trans/gay/etc people say but I believe in society today bad exposure destroys people, especially any sort of publication/business/etc. An example being if you're a pastor that won't wed gay/trans people for reasons that are awful your business will suffer in a lot of various ways. You're for one missing out on a lot of clients and secondly people aren't gonna be attracted to you when there is a pastor who's more open and accepting. It takes one person to say something publicly in regards to your lack of acceptance and you're done like dinner. That's how I can see cancel culture being used for good. That's just a hypothetical though. That's how I have faith in western society when it comes to this sort of thing. We've become more and more accepting, I see no need for laws in place to enforce this sort of change when we're in a constant state of change for the better socially. Anyways we shouldn't get too off-topic but that's how I stand on it.
-
Still how is that defined? Who gets to decide what hate speech is in the end? Especially in correlation to mis-gendering when there are no set amount of gender pronouns and based off of the subjectivity of person to person? The point I am making is the subjectivity of it and how subjectivity isn't a good way to make laws. I've watched a lot of debates in regard to gender/trans that people would describe as hate speech online when they're just having open dialogue. The BC supreme court even ruled that mis-gendering a child can constitute as child abuse.
-
The problem is who defines hate speech? Anyone can be offended and the subjectivity of this type of infringement is what I disagree with. I believe in society growing and maturing over time as we have for decades and centuries. We've made an immense amount of strides without the need of restricting any sort of free speech in this sort of way. IMO anyone should be able to say anything as long as it doesn't incite violence which the laws already prohibit. We live in a society today where any sort of bad exposure can destroy your reputation AKA cancel culture. That's my take on it at least. We finally disagree on something RS. Never thought it would happen haha.
-
I am not keen to make a bet like that. Especially when the returns and cap relief are far greater when we trade out a Boeser or a Virtanen. Instead of getting just a D prospect it could be a top one or more likely a top 4 D around the same age back. Those are the types of guys I would want back. I don't really want to mess with the forward prospect group because it is perfect the way it is and it is set up in a way that could potentially allow for a Boeser/Virtanen trade. We have the patience though to wait and see. That's what I want to do with Pod/Lind/Hog with the next 2-3 years. We have guys in the meantime we should really focus on seeing where they're at. Brisebois, Tryamkin, Rathbone, Rafferty, OJ, Woo. It would give us an idea of where to go next.