Jump to content

aziz

Supporting Member
  • Posts

    3,897
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    26

aziz last won the day on April 5 2022

aziz had the most liked content!

About aziz

  • Birthday 06/04/1974

Profile Information

  • Location
    Virginia
  • Specific Location
    Richmond
  • Favorite Team
    Flyers

Recent Profile Visitors

6,939 profile views

aziz's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post

Recent Badges

1.5k

Reputation

  1. Ok, it's been a long time since I've looked at the CBA. Like, a LONG time. But I could swear that a player signed to an arbitration-awarded deal becomes a UFA when that contract ends. And Swayman's last one year contract came out of arbitration. Why is he still a RFA?
  2. sorry, double post, because I'm dumb.
  3. And that's the twist, right? A team of jobbers can't have people taking shifts/periods/games off, because then they miss the playoffs. But if NOT taking those times off inevitably leaves them DOA come May.... Is that how it works, though, and I've just never put it together? Have most cup winners been noted as having a bunch of guys coasting now and then through the season, and the coach unconcerned (or even encouraging)? Does it mean the real secret to success isn't having an amazing top 6, but having an excellent bottom 6 that can allow the top 6 to conserve energy throughout the season? Does the same apply to the d-corps?
  4. This is a really interesting idea I'd not thought of before. Asking for a blue collar 100% effort out of 18 skaters, 60 minutes a game for 82 games is maybe NOT the greatest approach ever. Let them pace, let the third and fourth lines eat time to cover for slow night from the top 6, allow for slow nights from the top 6. Allow some players to play a 90 foot game now and then. Basically, allow the players to see the season as a long journey they don't have to be killing every minute along the way. And a journey with extra distance to go at the end, should things turn out well. It's an interesting idea. It makes some sense, and it does explain what we've seen of Tort's results for the last two decades. Has anyone noticed successful teams coming off the throttle throughout the season in this way? I can't say that I have, but then I've never really watched for it. Nor have I followed any particular team other than the flyers game in/game out through a season. Then again...it could explain that 09-10 finals run. They definitely took long naps through that season. Would you accept a team that regularly has players/lines taking shifts/periods/games off, if there was some idea it'd pay off in the long run? Interesting idea.
  5. I *think* the settlement was with Hockey Canada, not the players. Could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting. So, two separate things about the same situation.
  6. this is why I've always said building through the draft exclusively (or almost so) is a bad call. these are children, 17 in most cases, no way of knowing how they are going to turn out. some will throw tantrums and be unworkable. what a mess
  7. Fair enough. Demographers began predicting a general invasion of Ukraine ten years ago, based on their collapsing population/age ratios. And those predictions have come true. The predictions also indicated the ultimate goal would be to re-establish the territorial boarders of the USSR, securing geographic positions that would be more defensible than the open steppe of Russia proper. Two of those geographic positions are in Poland and the Baltics, with Crimea being another. All would be required (plus more to the east). You are right, though, they are all just predictions and projections. That would also almost certainly mean a nuclear exchange between the two sides. A desperate man who does not wish to die, but whose hold on power (and in Russia, that also means an increasing threat to his life) is in jeopardy, might very well believe the West would rather let Poland fall than poke a nuclear-armed bear. "We defend Poland and many millions will die, we find some kind of Molotov–Ribbentrop situation where Poland is cut up and no one dies." What would the West choose? Just saying, the things we've thought unthinkable for the last 30 years were only unthinkable for the last 30 years. It is not "normal", over the course of history, for those things to be unthinkable. And we are returning to the norm.
  8. Mostly true. I would suggest Russia's attitude towards corrupting systems to suit momentary desires and lack of caps on what they pay their players are facts, as is Russia's recent and dramatic change of focus from impressing on the international stage to re-establishing internal stability. None of these bode well for making an exodus of talent to the west easy, but you are right: they don't prove anything, or rule anything out. Definitely. I'd also suggest you have no more "facts" than I do. Arguably less, but only arguably. Neither of us know what is going to happen, I just don't see any reason to think things working out well are more than 50-50. We'll see.
  9. Russian politics and related things are now entirely internalized. If Putin could somehow force Ovechkin back to Moscow, he would. Presenting the Russian people with excellence in-person is now way more effective and desirable in sustaining his position than saying, "hey, we sent him to the west and he is doing great." Really, players going west undermines his position, as it means the only way for a hockey player to really prove himself is to not be in Russia. Which is true, and always has been. Where it used to be that the "we beat them in their own system" thing was valuable, it now begs the question, "what is wrong with our system that they have to go elsewhere and play for American fans?" Again, things are no longer as they have been. Yes, be afraid. We've lived a global situation that was unprecedented, has never been seen before in the history of the planet. Since 1945, generally, but specifically over the last 35 years. Globalization's sharing of wealth and resources across increasingly theoretical national boarders did amazing things we can't really appreciate, given our built-in perspectives. We grew up in it, and it feels like the normal way things are done. But it isn't. "Normal", geopolitically and historically speaking, is not one of unified cooperation and purpose. It is conflict and jealousy. Some areas are showing that breakdown more than others. Russia is leading the way. China will follow soon. None of this is meant to predict what is going to happen. Only to say if your prediction is based on how things have worked for the last 40 years, they aren't based on current reality. Personally, I think whether and when Michkov comes over will come down to his personal ideals; where he ultimately wants to play and where his "allegiances" are. His first NHL contract will be capped around $1mil/year, with bonuses not exceeding 10% of the total value of the contract. Which is itself limited to 3 years. His first contract will be 3 years at $1mil, he could make $3.3mil total. Some oligarch that wants to impress Putin with how he is protecting the motherland and her assets, and offers him $3mil/year, what do the Flyers do? What if the offer is $8mil/year? How good is the kid? Slide the scale to match. How could the Flyers/NHL match? He could be offended at how Russia decided to be the vanguard of the collapse of sporting globalization and want out. That'd put him in the Flyers' hands, maybe sooner than hid KHL contract suggests (because those negotiated agreements are going out the window). Or, he could be a proud Russian offended at how diminished his nation's reputation has become and decide to stay around to show the Russian people how amazing their own product is. Plus accepting a gigantic (and prohibited in the NHL) contract offered to him by a guy stinking of day old vodka and money laundering. It's a very weird time to be alive, people. Expect to be surprised in all kinds of directions over the next decade. Things will not be as they have been. Still like the draft pick, but it's one of the more "who can say, call it 50/50" picks I've seen.
  10. Things are decidedly NOT fine in Russia, aside from the war. They are not fine now, and will get worse over the next 10 years, again regardless of the war. Russia is in a terrible existential situation for a number of reasons, from demographics to an education system that effectively collapsed 25 years ago to an aging industrial base that cannot be rebuilt due to the aforementioned educational situation. Life in Russia could be very good for some people, so long as they know the right other people. it's gonna suck really bad for everyone else. Michkov has the opportunity to know the right other people. We'll see where his priorities end up. Also, my prediction if the Ukraine does full-on lose the war, Poland will be next. Ukraine was never the point, strategic geography in Poland and the Baltics are. Ukraine is just on the way to those. The fighting over the last 15 years in Georgia and Crimea were for the same reasons (though different strategic locations). Again, don't carry any of the "that's how nations deal with each other" we've come to expect since the USSR collapsed forward. They aren't relevant anymore in that part of the world.
  11. Why would you say that? Who would stand to be embarrassed or threatened by refusing to allow a high profile player leave Russia to play elsewhere? I don't think any kind of public outcry from any quarter would stop someone from doing that if that was what they wanted. I mean, international pariah-hood didn't stop Russia for starting the first major land war in Europe since WWII, why would anyone of a Russian mindset balk at blocking a hockey player's exodus? There's the defection thing, like you mentioned. Which would require Michkov to want to defect. Oligarchs can make your life really really nice if they decide convincing you to stay is a priority. And can make your family's lives really not fun were you to go anyway. Assume the international niceties we've come to expect from the last 40 years to not matter anymore, in regards to Russia. They are done playing that game and are trying to start a brand new one. And we don't know what that will look like, but we do know the psychology that will birth it.
  12. wow, really is a small world, I graduated high school in Va Beach in '92, my parents and brother still live there. either of you ever play at Iceland, right off Va Beach Blvd near the Norfolk boarder?
  13. I...don't think that's a thing. I've been out of the loop for a bit, but that seems on its face to be a not-thing. You have a contract, it either gets paid over its negotiated course, or you buy it out, at 2/3rds of the remaining value, spread over twice the remaining term for cap-hit purposes. The only exception I can think of is retirement. Retirement can void a contract, I think, but there are consequences. One being a mandated amount of time out of the league (I *think* it's just one year, and then you can un-retire, but again, it's been a while). There is no "we waived him, no one claimed him, so now his contract goes away". The NFL has that, the NHL does not. Here's the thing, people: draft rankings are based on children playing against children. Yes, they may play some against 20 year-olds (who are only still in junior because they aren't good enough to not be), but they've not stood against 29 year old NHL vets, players a decade removed and refined from the diluted talent of major juniors. The evaluation has huge blind spots. Some percentage of the time, things just don't play forward from there as you'd expect. Dude didn't live up to expectations at all, and the Wings lost patience, and want him gone, for whatever reason. The weird thing here is, like I said before, there's no cap relief from demoting him. Which means there isn't really any point to waiving him, other than A)he's that bad, and is in the way of better up and coming players, and you need the roster spot, or B)please please please someone claim him.
  14. waiving him doesn't remove the cap hit, it's a one way deal. so taking him on is taking his contract on, for the next two seasons. and his numbers aren't great, but that's all i have to go on. maybe diamond in the rough? or, high pick bust? looks a bit like the latter, and it seems most team scouts agree, but they are wrong most of the time, so hey. in the end, a team would be limiting some cap availability for a couple of years in exchange for a maybe-but-probably-not. i agree, i don't know why the flyers wouldn't, you know, take a flyer there. it isn't like they plan on doing anything with $1.8mil of cap space in the next two years. why not try?
×
×
  • Create New...