aziz

hey, man, I'm hanging in there. the best part of that whole thing was that once we had him fully convinced he was "banned" so all of his posts were showing up "Xxx x xxxx xx xxxxxx", he flipped out and started cursing out the admins no end. and got himself actually banned. the teamwork on that one was epic and an inspiration.

my finest moment, bar none.

hey, all, lurking a bit again one thought on the above...older players are part of the PA, too. and you'd think their seniority would give them more pull in the PA's go-forward plans. this move to extremely large second contracts is going to (probably already has, haven't been paying attention) start taking a LOT of money and ultimately jobs from UFAs. I can see things getting weird in the next negotiations, i wouldn't be shocked if the PA actually starts looking for more controls on RFA deals, or at least not give a lot of resistance if/when the owners try to wrap them up in restrictions. the PA was all about opening up options and leverage for young players, but that was before the game itself started favoring guys under the age of 27 so heavily, the vets could be magnanimous. anymore? less so, i would think.

ha, yup, i got caught. saw the flyers hired nick schultz for player development, and headed on over to watch the fireworks. but there aren't any. then saw this thread with 100+ posts, said, "who the heck is hartman?" and started looking for fireworks again. but none here, either, really. you people got real polite over the last few years. was i just a bad influence? all is well down this'a'way, hope everyone else is hanging in there.

and, from what people in this thread have uncovered, were basically parody, making fun of the kinds of people that actually held the mentioned views. context doesn't matter anymore, though.

also, it's great to be back, you guys rock.

this is it, exactly. there really is a movement afoot today that is seeking to put people back into boxes, to re-establish and reaffirm the hard lines that can be drawn around groups of people, and it is evil. it advertises itself as progressive and seeking equity (notably NOT equality), but it is reversing decades of progress made by the drift of perspectives towards "we are all just people". because that drift is real and it has taken us a long way from where we were in the '60s and '70s. to take away its energy, to re-emphasize things that shouldn't matter, resets a clock. humans are built to adapt, we have evolved to where we are because we can forget these tribal separations. we can come together across ethnic and religious and racial boundaries, have done so for thousands of years. we just have to redefine what we consider "our people". that only happens when we are allowed to stop seeing groups as "not our people". things like this are a fatal fly in that ointment: https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-hosts-no-whites-allowed-faculty-and-staff-listening-sessions-to-promote-inclusivity/ it just has to stop. there is no underlying difference between any of us. we should be seeking the places and moments and opportunities to share, not to create or rebuild divisions. we aren't there yet, obviously, and that means we have current impacts that have to be recognized and dealt with, but the overall solution is not to highlight our differences or separations. the solution is, to my mind, to encourage people to be "meh" about all of this. the solution is not to reflect on how your ancestry informs your current life, it is to realize how little your ancestry should mean, period. i read "main street" by sinclair lewis several years ago, and it struck home to me in several ways. first, it is the most boring book that has ever been written. second, there is a dude in the book that lives on the outskirts of town who is scandinavian. it is a really big deal in the book, no one will deal with him because he is one of "those". like, he was a complete pariah, anyone that interacted with him was met with a collective "ewwwww" from the townsfolk, as scandinavians were (apparently) seen as trash. it struck me because it never occurred to me that there might be a reason to dislike danish or dutch or norwegian people. they seemed about as milk toast as an ethnic group could be. except the book (written in 1920) made a HUGE deal out of it. sure, they were vikings way back, and vikings were assholes, but still, why hold that against a guy hundreds of years after the fact? but it happened. the book taught me that it happened for a long time. until, one day, we forgot to care about whether someone was from norway or not. and now it just doesn't mean anything. and that is how a society heals from these kinds of divisions. it forgets about them. it doesn't honor the divisions, it doesn't make a point of highlighting and elevating one group from another. it forgets that there is a difference. we are each individuals, and in a truly "equal" society, we let the individuals represent themselves. they are what they show themselves to be. the second we incorporate a gestalt concept of group identity and apply it to individuals is where we are ****ed. when we override the importance of the individual and insist on generalizations based on intersectional definitions, we have long term problems. as you say, the second we "aggregate" people into groups, and ascribe a common motive and thought process and life experience to every individual in said group, we are moving ourselves backwards.

true, and well said. these things do have an impact on life today, and that counts. my point was that when presented with the choice to increase the importance of these differences or decrease them, we should choose decrease at every opportunity. the current movement towards increasing attention on these things, on self-segregation and evaluation of an opinion's worth based on the holder's skin color (or direct connection to whatever victim status is being discussed) takes us away from the goal of "meh". i don't mean to minimize anyone's struggles. i'm just trying to say that those struggles continue for exactly as long as this society puts people into these kinds of categories. the day white versus black (or vice versa) racism ends is the day everyone stops caring if a person is black or white, not before. we are programmed to act against differences so long as we feel the differences mean something. we need to stop letting them mean something.

and i believe the above statement is part and parcel of the problem. what does where your ancestors lived hundreds or thousands of years ago have to do at all with the substance of anyone? i get that it impacts what a person's life is like right now, but isn't that because we continue to focus on it as Very Important? wouldn't it be better if everyone was all, "meh, i don't really care where your people came from long ago, i'm way more interested in you yourself and how you present yourself to the world"? if you see a person with red hair and a ton of freckles, do you say to yourself, "ah, their distant ancestors were likely from Ireland or Scotland, or possibly Wales, and that should influence how i perceive and interact with them"? humans are tribal. we automatically divide the world into "our people" and "not our people". always have, always will. xenophobia was a required survival trait for many millions of years and is a deep part of what we are. what all animals are, really. the definition of "xeno", though, is flexible. we are not hard coded to recognize any particular category of difference, only to separate based on whatever categories we currently deem important. we routinely abandon categories of difference as the process and progress of civilization moves forward. what was once seen as a vital difference between two groups of people becomes irrelevant trivia, possibly important for the individual and their personal identity, but meaningless in larger social context. Does it matter *at all* to you that a given person is of irish or scandinavian descent? or italian? or baptist? these used to be huge deals, and might be still for some individuals, but i don't even process "irish" when I interact with a red head with a last name of o'conner or something. it just doesn't matter to me in any way, shape, or form; they get a blank slate from me to fill in with their own character and value not derived from incidental genetics or stereotypes. "not seeing color" IS dismissive, and that is a good thing. so long as race is recognized as a primary attribute of people, it will be used as a primary means of separating people into "our people" and "not our people". once whether a person is african american, chinese, indian, hispanic, white, or whatever ceases to be seen as an important defining characteristic, it will cease to divide and we can begin to move past these issues. so long as it is held as vital and paramount, we will continue to have problems. this holds true for all dimensions along which we can draw lines around and between people. gender, age, race, religion, sexuality, hair color, eye color, height, handedness, whatever. so long as things an individual has no control over are used to categorize them, they will be used to separate. the only way forward is to stop caring about those things. not "understand and respect" them, but "stop caring". yes, this guy is a red head, and this girl is black, and this person is a catholic, and we shouldn't care about any of it; they are individuals, and we shouldn't let those other things inform our opinions or perception of them. /rant hi, everyone! bad day of sit-and-listen meetings, thought i'd type some. hope all is well.

I think Columbus is doing a large scale new leaf thing. New players, new mindset, new fortunes. Umberger was the old guard, he sat some in favor of the new. Which... It makes some sense. Less about in the moment preformance, more about a headstart on the new look to the team.

All true. For their statistical similarities, Hartnell and Umberger are very very different players. It'll be interesting to see how much it changes the Flyers in general.

and 27 of those points and 17 of those goals were with jagr. bottom line, they are at worst offensive equals, in terms of straight production.

they can say that while his offensive game is almost unmatched, his defensive game is barely NHL-caliber. that he doesn't deserve the money a true top flight #1 defenseman would get because his game is so unrounded. he is a dramatic step down in overall utility from the theoretically comparable all-situations franchise defenders out there. they can point out that even erik karlsson sees twice the shorthanded time that subban does, and kris letang three times. in the end, they'll focus on the fact that he is not an answer to all defenseman-related questions, and as such should not be priced along side those that are. he is of no use to montreal in some not-uncommon circumstances, and his value should be evaluated accordingly. if shea weber and drew doughty are $7mil+ dmen, subban belongs some amount below that. i figure karlsson and his $6mil ends up being the comparable, and he outscored subban by 20 points....

because offersheets generally aren't a good situation. you have to offer something bigger than the owning team is likely to match, i.e., you need to pay more than they feel is worth it (and it's the offseason, the 10% cap overage allowance means it is almost impossible to offer something the other team CAN'T match), and/or have to give up draft picks enough to make the owning team feel losing the player is a good deal for them. to boil it down, you have to offer a bad contract with distinctly unfavorable terms, enough to dissuade the team that owns the player's rights from matching. and, it is a frequent complication that a team must own its own picks to use them as compensation for an offersheet. generally not the hugest deal on the biggest contracts, as first rounders don't get tossed around all that much or all that far in the future. the middle tiers, though, where it is seconds and thirds, many teams have long since shuffled those around. in more specific terms, if you want to acquire pk subban via offersheet, you need to offer more than montreal feels he is worth, and you have to own your next 4 first round picks and be willing to move them for pk. so, you are looking at bringing subban on board at ~$7mil+/year for 4+ years, and functionally trading 4 first round draft picks for him. none of that is a good deal, imo. it isn't that people are afraid to offersheet him, it is that first refusal is a very powerful thing in an owning team's pocket, and it is rare that an offering team comes out with both a player and a good deal. and so it is rarely attempted.

to me, they just aren't interested in VLC. if poile doesn't think he'd help their roster, any amount of salary retained by philly won't change that. if poile thinks VLC would help his roster, then he'd be try to get the best deal he possibly could, including retained salary. the best deal possible is the same best deal possible regardless of who he is negotiating with. if he thinks he can get 50% retained, then he is going to try to get 50% retained. again, were there never a weber offersheet, poile still wouldn't sit there going, "i can probably get 50% retained, but i like the flyers' brass, so i'll only push for 25%." nor, "25% retained works well for my cap situation, but i hate philly so i'll insist on 50%, even if it ruins a deal that i see as good for my club." imo, the current situation is all about VLC not being attractive to other teams, and philly not wanting to hold onto much salary. i don't think there is anything deeper to it. right, and those 8 all came after the second to most recent lockout (amazing we can tell time by lockout number, huh?). we're running at one per year for the better part of a decade now. they were bordering on common, then disappeared entirely, and now are back as a normal if infrequent part of the RFA scene. the herons are fine, they're just shy.

there is no sweetener. this entire concept is insane. GMs value players, their own and others', as having worth in a given range. they are willing to pay X for that player, or demand Y in return for that player, regardless of who they are dealing with. all with an eye to getting the best deal they possibly can for their team. the idea that the best deal for their team takes a backseat to their personal feelings about a particular trade partner is crazy. tons of support in urban myth, but no basis that i can see in the reality of the situations that have occurred over the years.

i never said there was no "stigma" to it. yes, the GM whose kid was offersheeted gets all frowny faced when it happens, some may even say something to the press about other GMs undercutting their well considered cap strategy. the question is whether there is actual in-negotiations impact, where the GM who was on the short end of an offersheet says, "well, this a really pretty good deal for my team, but it is that guy offering it, and i'm mad at him, so I'm going to demand he give me more or i give him less --and risk the whole deal falling apart-- because he's a jerkface." just don't think it happens. similarly, GMs don't say, "hey, i really like that other GM, i'm going to give him more than I need to, or ask for less, because he's a super great guy. it might not be the best thing for my roster, but he's just so darn nice." GMs go looking for the best deal for their team. they don't accept a less-than-best deal because they have a soft spot for some particular trade partner, and they don't demand more than the negotiations can carry because they hold a grudge from years ago. especially when the actual guy who sent the offersheet isn't even in the GM's chair anymore. i'm looking at the list of offersheets accepted over the last 8 years (there have been 8 of them)...and i am unaware of any ongoing complications in the teams' relationships. philly-vancouver, edmonton-buffalo, edmonton-anaheim, st louis-vancouver, san jose-chicago, calgary-colorado. which ones refuse to deal with each other because of stubbed toes from years ago? the one exception to everything i'm saying is any team run by brian burke, because i totally believe that he would hold a grudge and it would be a whole thing. along with talking about taking opposing GMs behind the barn and punching them in the face.

can you expand on this? the numbers say there are more than one every summer. given that the only likely targets are outstanding talents who are not yet arbitration eligible and are not under contract by the end of june...how often does that happen? a couple every summer? and on average one of those gets an offersheet.... so...what, 20%? most GM's get their cornerstone prospects signed before free agency. of those few that don't, a noticeable percentage see a sheet. vanek, penner, backes, bernier, hjalmarsson, o'reilly, weber. that's 7 over the last 7 years.

90 per season, with, what, 85 of those being tweeners on two way contracts that no one cares about? eliminate the guys not worth the draft pick compensation, then eliminate the guys for whom arbitration is chosen, and you are left with a small handful of quality players who are qualified but unsigned after july 1 every year. not 3 from every team, but maybe 5 from the entire league. and every couple of years one of them (or more) gets an offersheet. 35 since 1986. 1.25 offersheets per year. as you say, not a dodo. not a pigeon, either, but...let's go with a heron. worth noticing when you see one, but everyone has, at one point or another. a sighting makes for an interesting but not shocking story over the dinner table. and again, if a general manager out there let his borderline generational talent get past july 1 without a contract, then that player receives an offersheet, and then that GM allows his ruffled feathers (to continue the analogy) influence negotiations...it's his own best deal he is tanking. i don't think "favors" exist between NHL general managers; the amount of money and reputation at stake precludes doing anything other than what is best for your team at any given point. i don't think any of the deals that happened between philly and nashville came from someone being a really nice guy and cutting anyone a break. the idea that no more favors will be coming is thus ridiculous. if nashville refuses to deal with philly because of what a former GM did, then that is poile deciding to let his lack of professionalism artificially close doors, and that's on him.

what principles? thou shall not send offersheets to highly prized but underbid RFAs? 35 offersheets sent over 28 years of the concept, it isn't the rarest of all birds. again, if nashville sees a deal in front of them that helps them out and they refuse it because of some petulant "they were jerks two years ago", then they deserve whatever they get. in this case, what they get (and deserve) is a malformed team that is equally poorly built as the penguins, but in the opposite (read: defensive) direction, and minus one generational talent. the penguins make the playoffs and flame out hard; nashville doesn't even get as far. if nashville goes into next season as they currently stand, they will be overpowered on a nightly basis as they always have. VLC might not be an absolute cure for that, but he would be medicine that would contain the disease a little. if poile lets his ruffled feathers get in the way of fixing that, it is more nashville's problem than it is philly's. VLC doesn't represent an actual weak spot for the flyers right now. he isn't a great fit, but he is definitely a first-world style issue. not being able to score goals is a door-closing problem for the predators, however. neal is useless without a center, and if someone thinks ribeiro is an answer......

@Irishjim I just can't believe it works like that. If a GM receives an offer that helps his team, but refuses to accept it because he thinks the other GM is a big poopy head..... Come on.

And there it is, really, right? I hate the penguins and wish them the worst, but I have fleury on a keeper team, and there aren't many better than him in the regular season. Same could be said of the entire penguins team, really : amazing things for 82 games, followed by horrific playoffs. I'm keeping fleury next season.

see, this is where i'm all conflicted about the whole thing. vincent lecavalier provides no leadership to the flyers, no positive example for the younger players on the team, he is not clutch, he is not someone you look to for timely goals, he does not deliver on the idea of a pillar around which the team is built. but he does score goals. they aren't the 12-seconds-left-in-the-game,-down-3-2,-tie-it-up-and-send-it-to-overtime goals. they are the ones that made it 3-2, or the ones that put the game away 5-3 on the powerplay with 1:30 left. point is, they count and they accomplish something. 20 times last season. only 17 assists to go with them, and a frankly amazing -16, but still, 20 goals. strip away all of the baggage and context surrounding the situation: a defensively weak 20 goal scorer who is a finisher rather than a creator at this point in his career. it isn't the thing you really hope your team can have, but it isn't worthless. grouped with the correct wingers, and that can be significant secondary scoring, it can be an effective second punch for an agressive offensive squad. there are way better options out there, were the cap dollars not spent on VLC. it is undeniably true, and i have no doubt at all that hextall is doing whatever he can to facilitate those options. it's an obviously bad fit. and i'm still 50-50 that he'll be around come camp. if he is, though, it isn't like he is a null in the roster. he isn't anything close to what we'd hoped for, isn't close to what we wish for, but 20 goals are 20 goals. a team could do worse for a second line center.

you think they all improved? i'm not sure. washington added an ok offensive dman and an (now overpaid) ok defensive dman, but lost a center. pittsburgh lost offensive firepower and the one defensive minded dman they had, while adding another offense-only guy, i.e. streamlining their look into even more one-way play. columbus did good work, but nothing earth shattering. nashville added goals without adding the assists that make the goals happen. essentially, washington made minor upgrades, pittsburgh become even more one dimensional, columbus solidified their place in the mix but certainly didn't put themselves over the top, nashville still isn't going to be able to score goals (and muddied their lockerroom). on top of that, montreal is still cary price and pk subban and really no one else, boston is showing signs of the formula not working so well anymore, the rangers will be exactly as good as lundqvist happens to be on any given night, tampa got a little better, detroit gets a little shallower every year, jagr was the debbie's leading scorer by a good margin and they did nothing to improve on that front. i don't think anyone is a lock in the east for anything. there are some good teams and some bad teams and a few in between, but no standouts, no one solid top to bottom and all the way around. i'd put the flyers on the "good team" list...flawed, but no more so than anyone else in the conference.

boucher ruined boucher. especially the first half of his career, he had serious skating and angle problems. he tended to lock into his set position with his weight back on his skates, making play-following adjustments slow and awkward, and to compensate he'd stay overly deep in his net. he saw the puck well, and had good raw reactions, but that flaw in his technique tended to put him behind the play and allowed a lot of pucks to get around him. no one ruined boucher, he was a backup level talent who fell to a backup level spot on the depth charts of whatever team he was with at the moment.