3putt

It is disingenuous to lament the woes of Ted Nolan because he was stuck with GMTM when Patty LaLa hired both of them. They all knew what they were getting into. If you do not think TP wanted McJesus and told everyone to whatever they could to get the best odds of landing him, you are deceiving yourselves. TP hosted the friggin otters at the Key to showcase the kid locally when anyone with a hockey pulse knew you could drive 90 minutes down the thruway to see him. TM is getting a bum rap for perceived shortcomings when those were not part of the original plan. Patty was supposed to be the communicator and the fuzzy face. When he did not get what he wanted, i.e. win now, he left his hires, TM and TN holding the bag.

The Hawks do that too.

Was that the game where Jack sniped the OT winner after an end to end rush?

You are remembering Seabrook. He is a pylon these days and an albatross contract.

ROR will be a winger in any lineup in 2 years, preferably on Jacks wing. Asplund will take Larssons place. Casey will be a pivot with OK on his wing. I doubt Bailey ever becomes a consistent NHL contributor but I think Baptiste and Fasching break out this year. If Kane signs to a workable number and plays alongside Asplund we would have very good distributed scoring and wheels through out the lineup.

By the time he is ready Jack will be a grizzled shell of his former self at 24. :w00t:

https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1019/Millennial-generation-could-kill-the-NFL

I am glad i am a mere observer. Fascinating.

Same thing

Dunleavy is atrocious. If you listen on the radio you have no idea what is going on.

He said he would but the RBF makes you look a bit shady. :flirt:

If he puts up McDavid numbers or close to it this year you end up paying McDavid money anyways. Sign him now for slightly less and if he does produce the AAV will be a bargain in 3 years. Also, TO will extend Matthews next year and that may drive up the market as well. I think 9 is fair but I can see if Bots paid a bit more.

No Hoby Baker but I bet he places in the UM spelling bee.

A cap is fine if it pools revenue equally and is skewed in favor of the players on the split. The arenas that are publicly funded should remain publicly administered and the revenue from non hockey events should go to the debt service. If you apportion the revenue for the various hard costs like coaching, training personnel, insurance, retirement etc., the contribution of the owners comes down to sales and marketing. The marketing part is where they have been failing.

As a consumer? no. The owners are the ones that pass the rules that make the product .

Yep but at 6"7" it works for me.

So would I. :flirt:

But you forgot to start with that is an interesting thought... :flirt: Serpentine Shelly

I am reluctant to give advice to strangers on subjects that are very personal, but I would cut yourself some slack. Part of your anxiety stems from the fact that this professional goal was important to you for whatever reason, maybe family or whatever, but it is much more mainstream than you think. You are soliciting advice. Another good step. If you think maybe a course correction is needed, you again are probably in the majority. Do positive things to make you feel good about you. Maybe some exercise, more time with Mrs and little Ink volunteering with something your passionate about. Feel good about yourself and the positivity will extend to others because they won't matter as much. Your insight here on the board shows you bring a unique point of view that is often well thought out and seldom reactionary or hasty. That is the grail of management. Next time you are asked something at work, pause, feign momentary reflection, and start your response with "That's an interesting question." Acknowledging others may help assauge their idea that you do not want to be part of the team. If that fails you may need to find someplace that values your gifts more appropriately. Good luck and keep your powder dry.

Really? You had to go there? Now I'll have to sleep with the light on.

I don't dispute that we made changes and at least on paper the appear positive. But every team feels that way. Have our changes been that much better than the others? Again i don't know.

I watch alot of Hawks games being here in Chicago. They are often held out as a model for possession based on the advanced stats they generate. But this is where I think the causation correlation problem arises for me. The Hawks have a lot of dump and chase, more than you would think. They are just very good at getting the puck back. They also don't fumble it on the halfboards that much (Ala Foligno, Des). But they also have finishers up and down the lineup. Are they successful because they possess or because the possession allows for more opportunity to finish? Do we have enough possession players? Finishers? I don't know.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I do not think we were intentionally a bad possession team, we were not good at it or did not or do not have enough possession players. But even if we have the right possession personnel, and an adequate system you still need finishers. I feel that is our weakness outside tbe top 6.

Alot worse.

Jet Black Ray Bans but darker nonetheless. My reservation is that while I agree on all counts I believe that factors like youth improving, better health etc. apply to all teams. The Leafs last year were blessed with exceptional health but the thing that put them in the playoffs was the youth, i.e. new additions, actually producing above replacement. I do not see enough adds that give us the asame momentum unless the Rochester 3 give us some sort of boost. He was a winger in Colorado as well. Not carrying the load.