LTS

Callahan has a NMC/NTC - he has to provide 16 teams he's willing to be traded to. Do you think he's listing Ottawa as one of them? So, Callahan most likely has to go somewhere else and that team has to move players to Ottawa who are not protected. So, they've got to get very creative. At the same time, if they intend on keeping Karlsson they will have to get even more creative after this season. If they sign Karlsson to even a $10M contract their cap hits for the foreseeable future is about $56M for 11 players. 5 forwards, 4 defense, 2 goalies. Give them $24M to play with in the following year to sign another 10-12 players. Could be tough... not impossible, but it would be interesting. So, who will be the third party that can help facilitate this trade? My guess it has to be one or two of Callahan, Palat, Johnson, and Killorn that get moved. Curious how much overlap their list of teams they are willing to be traded to would be.

It's not what I meant to suggest. I think winning/losing plays into whether or not players are willing to bite their tongue about a situation. It doesn't make the situation go away. If players have a problem with each other they will continue to have a problem with each other. However, when the team is winning they are less likely to say anything because they might upset the locker room and cause the team to start losing. If they are already losing then there's no need to hold their tongue because the team is already losing. The concept that winning cures anything is incorrect is what I am getting at. A turd is a turd, even if you put Eau d' Winning on it. It's just less likely to be considered something that should be flushed because it doesn't smell as bad at the moment. But when the perfume wears off...

Wow. I mean... they are going to be up against it in cap space. How could they possibly land Karlsson at this point? They don't have the space to add him at the moment... they only have $3.4M open. They have to move a salary or two. Unless the players with NTC/NMC waive or don't eliminate Ottawa as a landing spot they only players they can move are: Miller - $5.25M Gourde - $1M Paquette - $1M Point - $700k Andreoff - $700k Conacher - $700k Koekkoek - $865k Dotchin - $812k They would have to get super creative.. they aren't moving Miller after they just signed him are they? The rest of the players barely clear enough space if you move ALL Of them and then they don't have enough for a team.

Gerbe was a center. So.... Here's what i would suspect would happen. Training camp opens and the front office decides who they think is going to be their starting lineup. At that point, all players who have to clear waivers that have trade value will be shopped. If no trades happen before the start of the season then they will remain in Buffalo while others who are starters will be sent down along with any players who are unlikely to be claimed. The team will continue to look to move them or call them up as needed. They aren't going to waive Bailey or Baptiste or anyone if there is a trade value out there. Even if the trade value is a 3rd rounder in 2021.

It's what happens in January as well. The puppies are hypothetical. None of you deserve real puppies. ? Well, I've known professors, doctors, and others who have been married but their spouses spend most of the time in another state. Everyone has their own kind of relationship. You could argue that's not the norm but it doesn't make it workable. It's certainly not something I would participate in for an extended time. But the people I know, they do it year after year after year. What they do for personal interaction is an answer I don't have. They could be cheating, they might be fine with it. Who knows...

I'm going to selectively comment rather than quote everything. With regards to the competition and men who identify as women competing as women. I'm not sure there's a good answer. Do we need to divide the sports into testosterone levels above X and below X? I mean, if a female is born with abnormally high testosterone and wins would anyone say she had an unfair advantage? I honestly don't know enough behind the science of all of it. Are there instances of the opposite occuring where a trans-gender male (do I have that right?) wants to compete in male sports as opposed to female sports? It's unfortunate but there very well may be instances of people completely making up their identification just to try and win in youth sports. There's plenty of evidence to show that people do all kinds of insane stuff when it comes to youth sports. The question about prisons, etc. is a bit easier for me. If you went out and committed a violent crime I would not be too concerned with where you think you should be or even how you want to identify. I have very little tolerance for violent criminals or listening to their complaints.

Not being interdependent or independent of corporate greed. Not being reliant upon a Union to hopefully represent your needs over the needs of others in the Union. All of that said, if you are happy with your situation then that's fine. My statement extends to the fact that is takes a lot of work to get yourself into a position where you aren't dependent on a corporate structure or depending on a Union to make sure you don't get screwed by the corporate structure.

The locker room issues don't go away. The only thing winning does is reduce the chance that someone wants to speak out and potentially upset the winning ways. When you are losing there's nothing to worry about. Speak out, be miserable, yell at each other. You are already losing.

Given that the only place I've even heard anything about this whole thing is on this forum I am going to go ahead and say that they are fine. This place could concoct a problem theory on 16 puppies being rescued from a burning building.

I don't think any of them are considered to be an "elite" shot. Okposo is a workhorse. Pominville is past his prime and I'm not sure he was an elite shot ever, and Moulson scored around the net and on the PP.

Irritable Brain Syndrome? ? I think you should stop analyzing things and move to Hollywood. Also.. I'm joking with you.

Not just Kodak.. Bausch & Lomb, Xerox, and more. Kodak has been under for a long time. The decline from 2010 to now doesn't explain all of it. Kodak was estimated at 120k employees in 1973, 86k in 1998 and 19k in 2011. Sure it's declined, but so have a lot of others. It's done nothing to replace the lost industry. While NYS has increased by 2.4%, it is behind the national average of 5.5%. So, everywhere is growing, but NYS slower than the average. In addition, most of the growth is downstate with around 4.1% growth (533k people) whereas upstate lost 1% (61,668). The real measure of course is to determine how the economic levels have changed. I have not found a good chart on that. Overall, more people leave NYS for other states. http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2017/sep/29/edward-cox/new-york-has-most-people-leaving-other-states-coun/

I would say yes. I know it sounds strange but to a certain degree, yes. It's not the same as not being a hard worker. But, in some sense, people in Unions need them because they haven't put in the work to be able to operate independently or choose not to do so. I have chosen a path that allows me to operate more independently. At the moment I still am beholden to the whims of a large corporation. I recognize I can be fired for any reason. But my path is of my own choosing. Generally speaking I make sure I work harder than others and demonstrate more value. To this point, that has been a good strategy. I don't think anyone would argue that one of the flaws of Unions is that it protects those who don't work as hard. They level the playing field for ALL workers and as such the one's who stand out are sometimes brought down a peg while those who play the system continue to be employed. I'm not arguing there aren't internal union pressures to those people who tend to not put in their fair share, but when the Union needs to face the Corporation, that person is as protected as the star worker. We all know that corporations and unions CAN work out their differences without a strike. However, the strike is a negotiating tactic and the willingness to strike will vary from union to union based on its constituency.

Too much anger... you need to relax.

I would envision a lot of what we saw last year when it comes to Eichel. He'll be expected to carry the puck or receive the breakout pass out of the zone. He'll carry it and he will either get a shot off or he will take the puck deep into the zone where he will look to feed his teammates who trail the play. In this case Thompson who might actually put the puck in the net. It's not about keeping up with Eichel. It's about being able to be in position once Eichel has determined if he can or cannot beat the defense. As much as Eichel likes to shoot, he's an incredible passer and having a player with a prognosticated "elite" shot is hopefully the answer.

And yet.. if you look at the BMI matrix... 185 is smack dab in the ideal weight for 6'3. 23.1 in fact. The real question is how much his mass is bone versus muscle at this point. My guess, being Scandanavian, is that he has higher bone mass. So he will put on muscle mass as he begins his workouts. I was 6'3 185lbs my senior year in high school.

Is is extremely high. My point was that if you tax them enough they move. What is their incentive to stay? Eventually the "poor" are left trying to milk each other for money. Eventually they have to lift themselves up. The system, as it stands now, is designed to reduce the chance people have to succeed. Either it's one side that wants to make everyone reliant upon the government to provide (no self-motivation) or it's the other side that wants to make the resources to succeed available only to those who can afford it. Those with the means are the first ones to leave an unfavorable situation. If a company starts to struggle and people think there will be layoffs, the people who jump ship first are the most talented. Once they leave the company struggles even more to be successful... cue downward spiral and self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at the report this week about Rochester. It's lost 16,000 people from 2010 to 2017. There are a lot of reasons why Rochester is shrinking. First, NYS is shrinking, largely because of its tax laws and other anti-business regulations. Rochester, which was built on multi-national corporations, is shrinking because many of those people recognize that and have the ability to move. Rochester also has its own anti-business mentality which compounds the problem. Point is, there's a tipping point at which the willingness to pay the tax is exceeded and people move. This changes the taxation value from that constituent to zero. The proper solution is trying to build everyone up, not bring everyone down. As I said, I'm dangerously close to moving, at a minimum out of state, and more likely out of the country. I have a few friends who already have moved out of the country and many more who have moved out of state.

Unions have the potential to be very good. They also have the potential to be very bad. It's pretty much the same as management. If you have a management structure that is hell bent on screwing its workers then you probably need a union to counteract them. The problem is that it creates an adversarial relationship, which by its own definition, is less than efficient. Two sides spend time fighting each other rather than working towards a common goal. My father and I used to bang heads on this all the time. He was in a Union and I would routinely see him get screwed over by the Union. There were a lot of single guys who didn't care if they were on strike. Other, more experienced workers with families, had major concern. So, we routinely suffered the months of no income as the two sides had meetings and ate their meals and yucked it up. My experience was not positive and by the end of his tenure with the company the routine had worn thin. Eventually the company was sold, and sold again, and sold again. He managed to retire during one of the transitions but it was no fun. I've never been in a Union. I never needed to be in one. I don't feel like I get screwed over. That said, I am aware of situations where without Unions people would be screwed over. I've worked hard enough to make sure I would not need to be in a Union. I've worked to make sure that I didn't fall into that situation that my father was in. So for me, my view of Unions isn't very positive. That said, I recognize for others that without them they might have had it worse.

There's no intent to sound unaccepting in what I am about to say, I just don't know any other way to say it. Male parts are male parts and female parts are female parts. They are fundamentally different and via biology are designated as such. Biologically, if you have the parts then you fulfill that role in nature. You can call it anything you like but they'd never be called the same. Tab A, Slot B, whatever. Now, assigning any additional meaning to how life is supposed to be lived, whether someone wants to trade in their parts, etc. That's all up for the spectrum of behavior and modification. If a person goes out and trades in their parts then they are getting female parts or male parts. It is what it is. You walk in and say I need a #### then you get a ####. You can't walk in and ask for a #### and get a ######. So, there is an identity associated with the parts.

Well, I think as it was outlined in the isidewith.. the Libertarian party is the party I MOSTLY associate with... but not strongly. 56% I believe? I would argue that the markets are already rigged. The preferred form of government by the Libertarian party is one that allows people their own freedom to pursue their interests as they best see fit. It however, does not extend to allowing corporations to ruin the environment. I think that Libertarians would accept nearly no government so long as people could hold themselves responsible. (People running corporations included). That said, the realization is that it's not going to happen. So, government must exist and it won't necessarily be miniscule. The following quotes are from the party website. The argument is that much of the government regulatory atmosphere is unnecessary and unproductive. I happen to agree with that. It doesn't say that no regulations should exist. "Libertarians believe that the only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected." In summary, Libertarians advocate removing unproductive regulation, reducing and eliminating taxes, and getting government out of the way of innovation and job creation.

Wonder if Vegas trades Karlsson for Karlsson? ?

Thanks. All good stuff. A great post without a doubt. Also key to point out that cutting and pasting things into this forum is so much easier than before. It might be the thing I like the most about it.

I love this response. I am 100% serious. It gives us discussion points. It's much better than the single line response from before. If the government is made of the people, and people decide how the government operates, then why hasn't the government already allowed capital to rule us? Why is it, if people are left to their own devices, that you believe capital will run amok but if those same people form MORE government that they don't create laws that allow capital to run amok? Right now, as a business, I only need to focus on a handful of people in the government who can influence others to create rules that make it easier for my business to dominate the market. This has been true under Democratic and Republican led Presidencies and Congresses. If the government does not pass laws to protect the business then the business must win the influence of the people. That's a much harder job. In your definition of LIbertarianism you take away the requirement of the government to serve the people, not the business. Serving the people means that you pass a rule that says you can't dump toxic waste into lakes. You reference that LIbertarianism would enable price-fixing. Yet the government currently engages in that practice. It creates false price floors. It subsidizes businesses. It interferes with the natural balance. Liberty and Libertarianism does not mean no laws. It means less laws. There are libertarians who want to operate without any restrictions. There are Republicans who want the same as well as Democrats. They are all bad for society. Shall we coin a new form? The Moral Libertarian? I don't operate without morals. These passages as you quote are certainly shortsighted and do not account for many of the undesirable outcomes of the concept of "owning a child". I'm not sure how many LIbertarians sign up for this concept.

As you said though, it does not account for the other 3 schmucks on the ice right? Is it reasonable to assume that the forward pairings would even out somewhat over the course of the season such that it still allows for meaningful comparison?

I'm glad you are showing yourself out the door to be honest. It's clear you are not attempting to understand any concept of this and instead are hard fast in some ill-conceived notions of what is being discussed. Instead, rather than discuss the concept of Libertarianism you've chosen to insult anyone attempting to explain it and do so using analogies, associations, and terms that are flat out incorrect. As a last resort, I will throw this out for your brain to chew on. Reducing competition is not a concept that only applies to business. It's not even a human concept. Limiting competition is a core tenet in the laws of nature. When you are forced to compete you are forced to expend more resources than if you did not have to compete. Trees grow taller not only to insure that they get the most sun but also to insure that no plant within their area gets it. This is reducing competition. Weeds and grass engage in a perennial battle to see which will have control of my lawn. When two plants are on an equal enough playing ground that neither can snuff the other out because the amount of resources it takes is too great, then they coexist. This is also true of plants that do not compete with each other but are instead compatible with each other. The last statement I will make is that working to reduce competition is not equal to not allowing competition and that's something you don't seem to have grasped. Companies, people, plants, animals all work to reduce competition. None of them stop competition from happening however. That's what a government does.