Neo

"I'm down with Jay Vee Cee, yeah, you know me ..."

You guessed my question and answered it. In that case, why wouldn't he wait? You may agree, btw. I agree with you and others regarding the cost of a third given our stash and contract limitations. Grateful ... To add, from capfriendly.com: How do Entry-Level Contracts Work? Players younger than 25 years of age as of September 15 during the year of their first NHL contract must sign an entry-level contract which have set limitations - all entry-level contracts are two-way contracts and the maximum allowable salary for players drafted until 2022 is $925,000. The length of the entry-level contract is also dependent on the player’s age: 18-21 years of age: 3 years 22-23 years of age: 2 years 24 years of age: 1 year

Reason 3,264 I'm not a GM/Agent. Same apply after he's an UFA? I'm guessing yes. I will now narrow the decision to opportunity and geography. I've reached the point where each of you were already.

Putting on my GM/Agent hat with respectful trepidation - he's signed by Friday or he's not signed before he's a free agent. He'll see our best deal now, and that will include any premium we'd add for certainty before the draft or before NHL free agency in July. Beginning Friday, we start filling holes and moving bodies. If he passes, he'll see nothing greater before August 15. He may see less from us.

Thank you, UBK! I have, and I am. Here's to the others!

SwampD ... I read your reply to my post, above. I see the call you do. Claude ... I believe you see it, as well. I'm a N'eophyte regarding the topic but believe I've gained knowledge in understanding opposing points of view in regard to where they come from. Think less "he doesn't care or understand" and more "she priorities competing "good results" differently. I took some of the tests. There are a lot of "would you treat some one or group unfairly in order to alleviate harm done to some other one or group". "Would you surrender freedom to authority to preserve some heritage"? "Would you disadvantage your righteous family to bring justice to someone else's righteous family?" "Do you prefer fidelity to some moral/ethical construct to some act that alleviates pain in another?" I'll open my kimono with regard to my capacity to understand. It's limited and untested. I believe Haidt is seeing evidence that the conservative sees a balance in weighing five values (Harm, Justice, Loyalty, Authority and Purity) and a liberal weights two (Harm and Justice) more heavily than three (Authority, Loyalty and Purity). Each value brings "the good" to us all. Each raises an obstacle to "the good" for us all. See the slope commentary in the TED talk. I am using "balance" in a way that claims no critical thinking or moral/ethical superiority. It means only an approach. No approach is always better. Complete? No. Enlightening? Yes. My joy comes from surrendering "I'm right and you're wrong" in favor of "My cost/benefit is structured and weighted differently". "I'm right and you're wrong" is sticky, no doubt. Claude asked me to step outside of myself and look at my conclusions vis-a-vis those of others. We can debate weighting or structure without ascribing ignorance or malevolence.

TED ... https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en Site .... http://www.yourmorals.org Most interesting ... Claude's found something

Column as I See 'em ... A broken man killed 49 sons, daughters, mothers and fathers. Rest in Peace all 50. Fear and Loathing and Living in America. "Semantics" is as miss-used a term when describing the language debate around Radical Islam as "irony" is when Alanis is singing about coincidence. Semantics is precisely the logic and meaning of words. Pro or con, the chosen language is a deliberate choice advancing a strategy. It's semantics either way. I don't understand the President's strategy or his language. My sense is that it appeals to his supporters and his strategy is to retain their support. I find no leadership in currying support at the cost of clarity. "We all know what he means". I need more from the office. Lincoln, Churchill, Reagan, King all used semantics to crystallize ideas. History treats them kindly because of their courage. Exactly who, if we all know the true meaning of words, is being fooled by this linguistic subterfuge? Who are these imbeciles we're fooling? Whose incapacitated sensibilities are we protecting? I am fond of candor. I think it's effective and a characteristic of leadership. "The long game" national strategy is too clever by half, if that's what it is. I have my doubts. The war is here, now. We withdrew and our enemies, self proclaimed and proud, advanced. Boots on the ground isn't a problem for them. Ask yourself "where do you want to fight?", because you're in a fight. Guns, ah, there's the rub. Drawing your attention to his left hand, the magician deftly pulls a quarter from your ear with his right. Raise your hand if you believe gun free zones, limits on magazines, or bullet logs would prevent carnage in this or another form. If I see a hand go up, I'll ask your view on fertilizer, pipes and vests with ball bearings. We can then move to cyanide, anthrax and dirty bombs. Paris and its tough gun laws has learned. When will we? "Things never said ..." thread homage: second amendment supporters wish everyone was armed and believe that would protect everyone. I am in no hurry to fund the TSA. Terror isn't brilliant, but it's figured out where shopping malls, office buildings and discos are. America was exceptional. Its national character rose to the occasion in 1776, 1861, 1917 and 1941. I am not certain the Balkanized, trigger word, safe-spaced and comfortable nation we now inhabit has the same national character. This saddens me more than any policy debate. I beg indulgence from NS, to whom Balkanized has a more personal, less traditional, connotation. Religion is beautiful. Anything can be hijacked. Imagine a world without belief, even if it's a belief in something without a deity. I think John Lennon got that one wrong. I won't surrender the beauty born in belief because I have to fight its ugly manifestations. Fortunately, my family never quit on me. I am watching two political parties commit suicide. People get the government they deserve. I am a "people". More importantly, we the people, on separate sides, are cheering the horror on the other side of the room. Just my thoughts. No debate with regard to any one or four of you. I have too much respect and affection for you all to debate in this limited media. No one here wants anything but the best for us all. I appreciate, more than you know, the kind remarks of several days ago.

Awesome thread. I tried to think of one for this moment ... you nailed it. Perrault's a journeyman with an inordinate amount of secondary assists.

If the name's Bennett, "done", but that ain't happening. Outside of Bennett, I don't see a name (considered Shinkaruk, Poirier and Kylington) that I like more than marginally over Fasching or Bailey. I believe thee three, as a group, are stronger than Fasching, Bailey and, say, Guhle, but it's close. I may be leaving out a young NHL roster player that we can still call a prospect. To me, It comes down to 3 Eric Cornels and another Fasching for a Nylander/Keller/SergaChych. One of the three #2s would have to develop into an #8 just to break even. I'm out.

I wish Ray would clean up his act. What's the fuss, May beats Bourque 9 outta 10 times. It's great to see so many Leafs fans here.

Jay McKee, 2006 Conference Finals

FORTRAN IV and APL, here. My model's suggesting Jiri Dudacek.

Rest in peace, Mr. Hockey.

I believe he just got the date wrong.

1860 - Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A Douglas were both from Illinois 1904 - T Roosevelt and Alton B Parker both from New York 1920 - Warren Harding and James M Cox both from Ohio. 1944 - FD Roosevelt and Thomas E Dewey both from New York In addition, the 1992 candidates, George H Bush and Michael Dukakis, were both born in Massachusetts, though Bush was not resident there, but in Texas. Google, not my personal knowledge.

I don't include pollsters in my vested interest crowd. I'm thinking pollsters show the public result of the vested interest presentation. Make sense? Not sure you were "talking to me", or not.

In that case, there is a villain. I alluded to the possibility ("beware economic impact reports and those with vested interests in them"). You didn't allude, but instead offered a specific example. You can use "problem"! I was vague and will add some "shoulds": Representatives should be honest, voters should inform themselves, and voters should hold representatives accountable. Skepticism! Sidebar without data - I feel Pegula is about as - profit oriented / community oriented / put his own money in play oriented - as they come. He's no charity, but I was overwhelmed by how his vision and investment has changed the downtown I once knew. I think there'll be a new football stadium, and I believe he'll participate alongside the public sector to an extent many other owners wouldn't. I'm not as close to this activity as I was in an earlier life.

To the question of "should": I'd vote: "Yes, if the payers of the tax want to, and no, if the payers of the tax do not (where the taxpayers have representation)." In other words, there is no "should" I can find that applies in any two situations. I also don't see any common "it depends" other than "it depends on how each group of taxpayers makes decisions". An analysis Baltimore taxpayers accept may be one rejected by Fresno taxpayers. I don't get outraged when communities build palaces for wealthy leagues and team owners. I don't because, well, those communities choose to build palaces. I don't get outraged when wealthy leagues and team owners ask communities to build palaces. They own a scarce product that's highly desired. We can always choose not to buy. Lastly, I don't get outraged when taxpayers and communities say no to the funding. My advice to communities would often be to pass, especially if they asked me about return on investment. My advice notwithstanding, they frequently choose to tax and build. So, I'm left with: Depending on who you are, you should decide what you want to do, and then do it. PS - economic impact studies are an "industry". Consultants get hired, politicians get re-elected, developers get contracts ... "because our studies show to taxpayers that their investment ...". Read with a skeptical eye. My favorite sports / public-policy construct. "They own a thing that we're willing pay dearly for". There are no heroes and no villains.

Agreed. I judged him sincere in his deeply held beliefs. This judgement came with my maturity.

Some of you have said nice things about my post. Thank you, most sincerely. You know how I value your views. I want to acknowledge DirtDart's post. His sentiment was absent in mine, but it captures another very real aspect of America's visceral reaction to Ali. My union steelworker/bricklayer family felt it. I was raised in a family where racism didn't exist, but the core values of duty, honor, country did. I didn't hear the "n" word, but I did hear "draft dodger". My grandfather, and his brothers and cousins, left their families on December 9, 1941, to board ships and fight in the Pacific. I ate dinner, went to church, and did homework under the supervision of The Greatest Generation, a description they'd never use themselves. They left new wives and young children at home. Imagine Ali in their eyes. I had to ask myself "who's right?". The sixties and seventies were a cultural spasm where disparate people were learning how they fit together. Ali challenged instututions of the heart and mind as organized into society and culture. He was scary because he demanded change while recognizing the personal consequences. Ali was complicated. He touched me as a boy, in my teens, and as a young man. I'm better for it.

Ali was 3-0 against Mayhem, counting Liston (2) and Foreman. That grows to 5-1 if you include Norton. A broken jaw was involved in the 1 loss. Of course, that's an outcome and not an excuse when you're evaluating Ali against sluggers. If you add Ernie shavers, it's 6-1. I don't think punching power deterred Ali.

Ali v Tyson ... I used to give this thought during Tyson's hay day. I come down on Ali's side in a measured way, like Taro does. Interestingly, they both had two careers. Ali had pre and post ban, and Tyson had with and without D'Amato. I found myself comparing each at their earliest, each at their latest, and older Ali with younger Tyson (chronologically closest). Each is a markedly different fight. I settled on the bodies of work. Ali morphed to be the best as time, opponent and skill set changed. Tyson won 2/3rds of his fights before the opening bell sounded because opponents entered the ring terrified. Ali could change his style to match Tyson's. Ali's fearlessness would deprive Tyson of the advantage Mike had so regularly against others. Advantage Ali in what would be something to see. Artisanal poetry vs singleminded mayhem.

Mohammad Ali is dead. There are times when you have to undertake something knowing you’ll never be successful. This is one of those times. On a planet six billion years old, being born in 1961 or 1981 doesn’t seem like a significant difference. If you were born in the United States, the significance is large. Ali, and what he taught us, is one of the significant differences. In many ways, he was a participant in many of the arenas and fights that brought us so much pain, beauty, redemption and frustration. We know his fights to be boxing matches, his arenas to be 20’ by 20’ “rings”. and his foes to be Liston, Frazier, and Foreman. We know his recognition to be Heavyweight Champion of the World. As large as those people and things were, they were small in the context of Ali. His fights were also justice and humanity. His arena was the world. His recognition included him being the single most recognized human being on the planet for decades. I sometimes think God gave Ali splendid athletic ability knowing that sports and art draw our attention, giving Ali a voice for his truly meaningful mission. I am unable to describe the context of race and class struggle as it existed in the 60s and 70s. You may know it, yourselves, or you may want to know it. If the latter, you’ll have to read, and read, and read. I had the luxury of being alive. I absorbed and witnessed. Ali’s grievances were real. The courage he displayed, and the sacrifices he made to principal, were extraordinary. I’ve often wondered what he’d think of micro-aggressions and safe spaces. Politicians are policy people with the authority of elected representatives and office. Government is an organization that gives infrastructure and common rules for us all. Politicians, at their best, are also leaders who inspire us to greater ends in matters of race and class, freedom and equality. When I think of politicians in this context, I think of Ali as our first black president. I used a small “p”. I get it and I’m not diminishing the joy I feel regarding our first black “P”, President Obama. Ali anointed himself the Greatest of All Time. He dared you to argue. He knew he was making a claim that would create debate, on merit, with regard to a sport with many greats spanning many eras. He also knew he’d create another debate with that claim. He lived in a world were many weren’t ready for a black man to be brash, loud, confident, and unafraid. He was UNAFRAID! Imagine that in a world where large portions of the population successfully relied on blacks to be afraid and invested evil energy making sure they were. All human beings are complicated. The scale of Ali’s participation in the world magnified his complications. Ali preached love and respect for human beings (“I ain’t got no quarrel with no Vietcong”), faced jail, and surrendered his heavyweight title for the principals of justice and racial equality. He also belittled and emotionally tortured Joe Frazier with racial and intellectual taunts. He bullied Frazier in an arena where Frazier was less equipped to compete. He bullied Frazier in an arena Frazier didn’t ask to enter. I’ll never understand this episode. Ali was complicated. Ali fought Sonny Liston and George Foreman. People who knew boxing thought he was legitimately at risk of serious injury. The Thrilla in Manilla and the Rumble in the Jungle are confrontations of speed, power, strategy, perseverance and courage. Watch them. Human drama in sport at its highest level. The Thrilla in Manilla was epic. I use epic as it was intended to be used. Epic sporting events: The Miracle on Ice, Secretariat at the Belmont, The Thrilla in Manilla. I have no more. Mohammad Ali was beautiful. Power, speed and courage. Watch his hands in fight video. For years, his legs gave him a platform that put him in a position to launch hand assaults while at the same time being impossible to chase down. Later, his brain gave him the ability to hide in plain sight until opportunity allowed him to launch those same hands. Movie: Facing Ali. Must see. Books: King of the World (David Remnick); The Fight (Norman Mailer) - I’m grateful, Eleven, for this recommendation. "I am America. I am the part you won’t recognize. But get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me.” "I shook up the world! I shook up the world! I'm a bad maaaan!" "Rumble, young man, rumble ….. Yeaaaaah" Mohammad Ali is dead. Mohammad Ali will never die.

Brawndo .... you're awesome. Pieces of information available no where else. ... unscripted human interest ... presented without analysis for our consideration and response. Thought starters we'd not find in the traditional press. Sounds like a great gig. Thanks for sharing. What I find most appealing is the unguarded snippets from young men about to take the biggest leap of their lives ... they're kids ... humility, braggadocio, graciousness, confidence, thrill .... You have me in a room I'd not otherwise be able to enter.