TrueBlueGED

We shall see. I do have a Consumer's within walking distance...

Not enough, that's for sure. Brodin is probably a homeless man's Vlasic.

Today I discovered that Hop Stoopid comes in 6-packs. If this happens, or some facsimile thereof, I will find out what happens when one consumes said 6-pack in a single sitting.

Marc-Edouard Vlasic: a real defensive defenseman. When I say I want a shutdown guy, this is the type of player I mean.

Paging PA to the red courtesy phone. PA to the red courtesy phone please.

With the Toews/Kane contracts, they have ZERO margin for error (and Toews is decidedly NOT worth that contract, but it's not like he's the kind of guy you trade at 26 when he signed the deal). The Seabrook contract was a HUGE error--his play has dropped off precipitously. Hossa, while still a very good player, is no longer his peak HoF self. There's more, but those are the biggest issues.

Ruff returning would cause 11 to grow some south of the border.

But we're going 6-10 with DeShone Kizer ready to take over in 2018, so it's all good. Or so I dream.

All yours, man. Then we can split the difference and both go after the Weber-Subban intangibles snark if the Preds go deeper than the Habs.

Yes. And if they get swept out, following last year's first round ouster, I'm going to claim victory on my "they're going to have a lot of trouble staying competitive with the Toews/Kane deals" narrative I've painted for a couple years now. Should I? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm definitely going to :lol:

I think so too. I think Pegula goes the Full McDermott--no nonsense, generic cliche generatiing machine.

Okay, this is a great line :lol: Emotionally, I'd really like it. I just don't think it'd be especially smart. For whatever it's worth, my ideal structure going forward would be: President of Hockey Ops: experienced executive (preferably the good kind of experience) who, in spite of experience, is "up" on modern hockey GM: Up-and-coming assistant from a smart, successful organization Coach: up-and-coming assistant from a smart, successful organization OR successful AHL head coach

I will MS Paint the ###### out of some charts the moment he's hired! I'm just saying, the whole past accomplishment thing doesn't do a ton for me. Edit: To clarify what I mean a bit, I'm fine with using past performance as a way to evaluate the hire. But once the hire starts doing things, I rapidly stop caring what he did with team X 5 years ago. Put differently, I don't think it should be used to judge the moves the guy ends up making. "I don't know what to think about this trade, but he won a Cup, so I'll trust it" is just...meh, to me.

Maybe you've lost a few mph on the ol' fast ball? Work on your off-speed stuff! :)

It was bound to happen eventually: https://www.gofundme.com/fire-russ-brandon-billboard At least a few of you better pony up a few bucks :p

Accomplished doesn't do much for me. I just spent two years hearing about a coach's past accomplishments, while his present performance was an abject failure. The thought of fighting this battle with a GM, who will almost certainly have a longer tenure, is nauseating.

If Kevyn Adams is given the hockey department to oversee, I give up hope on the Pegulas.

I won't be at all surprised if this happens, but I will puke.

I fully expect to hate listening to the next GM talk. I expect utterly meaningless executive-speak.

For sure. At the time, I thought that was just a thing he said to be diplomatic in the media...but hindsight being 20/20, I think he had an idea he wasn't on super solid footing. Which is why I mused a few posts back about whether at some point during the season Pegula thought Bylsma should go, but Murray stood by him. Then it all plays out, they finish lower than last season and totally collapse down the stretch...Murray may have known.

I think the two things I have bolded are related. My working theory builds off of something I've posted about before, a nagging thought I just couldn't shake: that Murray and Bylsma really were on the same page. Unless something Pegula says tomorrow really sways me, I believe when Murray said last week that he had never given any thought to firing Dan, he was giving the blunt truth. I think, to the end, Murray had no intention of firing Bylsma. Now some will say they don't think he'd fall on the sword for Bylsma, but I don't think he was given an ultimatum of any kind. I think part of the plan forward he layed out for the Pegulas included retaining Bylsma for the 2017 season. The Pegulas took the night to evaluate things, and essentially decided that what Murray had presented wasn't a satisfactory plan moving forward, and retaining Bylsma was a big (but certainly not only) part of that. And yes, I think Bylsma was so bad, that retaining him would be a fireable offense. More to the point, if my read of things is correct, it really does call into question Murray's ability to grow as a GM.

I'd freaking love to know if Pegula thought a coaching change should have happened at some point during the season and Murray stood up for Dan. I'd kill for that kind of knowledge.

So close! You're so close! Just a few more inches! :p

Even if it were purely marketing he's responsible for, then the lackluster game day presentation, the ham handed nature of things (season ticket increases on DNA appreciation day, etc), weak sauce fan appreciation day gifts (lol crappy sunglasses), and so on...that stuff doesn't speak highly to his acumen. Yea, both teams sell a lot of tickets, but it's now looking more and more like that's just a function of the market. After all, Roger Goodell makes the NFL owners plenty of money, however...

Good talent evaluator, bad team builder? Could be, there's some evidence for it...but not enough for a slam dunk case.