aziz

On 3/8/2023 at 5:23 PM, icehole said:

It may not show exactly who the better team is, but it does show who has more talent and skill. I'm not being a jerk when I say this, but is it a coincidence that the fans of the worst shootout team in history hate the shootout?

My problem is the shootout as it currently stands is that it has everything to do with talent and skill, yes, but talents and skills that are not relevant to an actual game of hockey.  In no game ever would a shooter have 12 seconds to sweep left, then right, then left again, then right again, then deke, then go left, deke, go right, then left real quick, deke again, go right, deke, go further right, and finally put the puck in the back of an open net as the goalie has tried to track a play that cannot ever exist outside of that one scenario.

Make it all happen at game speed, and I suddenly have zero problem with the shootout.  It's not a good tell of the better team, so arguably shouldn't impact the standings, but I could accept it.  It's this crap that just has nothing to do with the actual game of hockey, this is crap you do in practice, and the goalie gets annoyed (and the poster calls it "dazzling", ffs):

On 3/8/2023 at 1:16 PM, MaineFlyFan said:

Can we make a rule that says after 3 BONEHEAD moves, the fanbase is allowed to chase the GM, naked, tarred, and feathered, down whatever street the arena sits on..... till they catch him?

yes, this, but someone has to yell "I declare shenanigans" right before.

On 3/8/2023 at 12:23 PM, CoachX said:

Shooting teams goalie would have the puck. The shooter would start from the redline boards on the bench side. On the whistle the shooter would have to skate into his defensive zone and take a pass from his goalie, before reaching the goal line. If the pass is fumbled or missed, shot attempt fails. If connected the shooter then has to stick handle around his net, skate the full length of the ice and take his shot. A time clock will be set forcing the shot to be taken before time is up. The shooter must have the puck in contact with his stick the entire time until the shot is taken, and the puck must constantly be moving toward the defending goaltender

That's...really complicated.  

As you mention it, though, a timeclock accomplishes the same thing as the backchecker in my idea.  Set the clock to 5 seconds after the shooter touches the puck.  The point being:  make it a real breakaway situation, with little time to spare.  You get a free pass at the goalie, but you have to act fast.  I really respect a lot of things about Kane, but I hate him mostly for his shootout crap.  It's literally embarrassing to watch.  Make the PS happen at something close to game speed, ffs.

On 3/8/2023 at 7:01 AM, SCFlyguy said:

Mods, please rename thread to "Old Man Yells At Cloud".  Thanks.

lol, you aren't wrong.

It's a weird thing, though.  I can't see the things I loved about hockey in the current game, and would really like those aspects to come back.  It's strange to look at a thing you were completely obsessed with for 30 years, and one day realize it has become something utterly different, something you actually actively dislike.  And I do actively dislike the current game.  It's become a game of frantic end to end random chaos, roll three lines of up-tempo stick handlers and force chances from all angles, screw all concepts of counterplay (other than counter rush) or strategic depth.  Which some people like, and the game has pivoted to their preference.  And fair enough.

The thing is I'm 48.  Old man, sure, but not OLD man.  It's weird that checkers overtook chess that quickly.  "Back in my day" now means 15 years ago, not 40.  It's how things progress at this point, I guess.  I can dream the game can become deeper than it is now, though, can't I?

3 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

Exactly! I have posted open ended questions for him to respond to and crickets. I’m all up for debate but he brings nothing to the table TO debate.

which, really, means ignore him.  It isn't even fun trolling, where he comes back with pithy stuff (do I miss Vader?), it's just contrarian "pffft".  He's either looking to create drama, or REALLY can't keep up.  Either way, walk away man.

by popular demand (which is to say, CoachX), a thread dedicated to rules changes in the NHL that would MHAA (Make Hockey Awesome Again).  Should be a fun thread, but tend towards the serious.  Serious, though, meaning you think they'd be a good idea, not that they are likely.  Also, serious meaning not entirely dumb.  Though that is probably subjective, so hey.  Let them fly.

To get it started, the two I put in the thread now dedicated to chewing on Tucson:

1. All wood sticks (a la MLB).  Reduce shot velocity and release times from non-slapshot shots.  Creates a more predictable offensive environment (in terms of who is in a position to shoot and who isn't), and allows for a reduction in goaltender armor.  The combination of more observable shot releases and reduction in required protection for goaltenders creates (maybe surprisingly) a more dynamic and deliberate offensive zone situation.  Shots can still come from any angle, but will require more time and space to cleanly release, and goaltenders will be able to pick up shots far more cleanly (goalies today are taught to basically play the entire game from their knees, as shots come from anywhere at any time with no warning, and covering low for weird random crap is the order of the day.  It's lame.  Get the goalies back on their feet, and we let some quick but not 6'5" guys play).  With this, offensive possession starts to look to build strategic advantages, rather than rely on momentary tactical missteps.  A team that can BUILD time and space for a shooter is rewarded, a team that relies on chaos and surprise shots is not.  And, as hinted, it allows the discussion of goalie equipment size reductions to be practical.

2.  Add a backchecker to penalty shots.  A defender of the defending team's choice starts at the far zone's hashmarks.  This puts the defender 60 feet behind the shooter.  This is plenty of space for the shooter to execute a breakaway without pressure, so long as he plays it like a normal game situation.  He even has a few extra seconds to get clever, but only a few seconds.  This eliminates the 2 MPH, back and forth, make a million "dekes", turn the goalie inside out stupidness of the current implementation.  You are awarded a breakaway, and you will have a free and clear path to the goalie without interference, so long as you aren't Patrick Kane about it.  The advantage of the PS is preserved, but the unenjoyable clownshow of modern shootouts goes away.  Honestly, every time I watch them, it reminds me of that a**hole that wants to put moves on the goalie during pre-game warmups.  Either you can beat the goalie at game speed or you can't.  I don't care -and neither should the league- that you can dangle like a crazy person while under zero pressure.  Get rid of that crap.

Ok, ice broken.  Let's hear it.  I do not enjoy the current game, really at all.  The nuance of the game has been lost in speed and chaos, and we need to find a way back to a sport that is built on a blend of talent, perseverance and structure.  How do we do that.  Yes, this is as though anything we say means anything other than posts on a forum, but hey, express the dream.

36 minutes ago, CoachX said:

I think there should be a thread devoted to oir forum members recommending NHL rule changes, as inspired by @aziz

 

The more outrageous, the better 

Ha, love it.  I'll go start it now.

20 minutes ago, flyercanuck said:

Unless the goalies cut back on basically wearing a mattress I don't think composite sticks are going anywhere.

My theory is the composite sticks feed the current goaltending meta, both in terms of technique and equipment.  Shot velocity would drop significantly with wooden sticks, you could then safely go after the silly chest and pant armor goalies are wearing these days.  And getting rid of the crazy-fast releases composites allow would have goalies back on their skates, rather than being trained to play almost exclusively from their knees as we see today.  AND it would let smaller goalies maybe have a shot.  I think offensive zone play in general, both from the attacking and defending perspective, would become far more interesting if there was something more deliberate going on than the spring-steel effect of modern sticks.

Related...I really wonder if Bedard would be nearly as effective with an old Sherwood.  He has a ton of gifts, but his wrist/snap shot is a big one, and it relies on REALLY REALLY heavily loading his stick before release.  I couldn't believe how much load those sticks would take when I first saw him.  Doing that with wood would just break the stick.

Anyway, won't happen.  But one can dream.

22 minutes ago, CoachX said:

Actually, it wouldn't bother me one little bit if they did. And I hate thee shootout so any change to it would be welcome. In fact I would be ok with letting the goalie bum rush the shooter and deliver a body check, ala Mr. Hextall (I wonder if Chelios still has nightmares?)

They'd probably call it a trip or charging or something, like when Hasek did that to Gaborik (albeit a normal course breakaway, not a PS).  Just get a guy starting 60 feet behind the shooter try to chase him down.  If the shooter keeps a reasonable pace, it wouldn't change the breakaway much, but it would make him get to the point.  I find exactly zero interesting with a Kane-style approach, coming in at a snail's pace, making literally 40 "moves", because he has -also literally- as much time as he wants, so long as he keeps moving forward.  It's stupid.  Having that guy coming changes the PS into a thing with actual game pressure.  Get it done, make your one or two moves and take the shot.

Edit:  also:  no, Chelios doesn't have nightmares.  He turtled up, and the whole situation broke Hextall's career.  He was suspended the first 12 games of the next season, came back out of game shape, and tore his groin.  Which is an injury that never fully heals.  I hate Chelios, and I am pretty sure he smiles really big when he thinks back to that.  Both putting Propp in the hospital and tanking what could have been an impressive goaltending career.

3 hours ago, GratefulFlyers said:

The Flyers will ruin Ersson the same way they're ruining Hart - by making him play in front of a halfass roster.

I don't think that's a thing.  Goalies don't get bad at goaltending by seeing a lot of high quality shots, or even by losing a lot games.  Discouraged?  Sure.  Become bad goalies?  No.  Luongo was in FLA for, what, 6 years?

On 1/24/2023 at 4:22 PM, flyer4ever said:

Who in the salary cap bett turd era has won a cup without multiple top 5 picks?

Well.  (only looking at impact players.  if there was a #3 pick that scored 8 points over 82 games, sorry, missed him)

'19 St Louis - I super dare you to tell me that Brayden Schenn and a 100 year old Jay Bouwmeester disqualify them.  Do it.  Tell me you wanted either of those players on your team in 2019.  I was ok with Schenn when he was a Flyer, but there are some of you that still won't speak to me because of that.

'18 Washington - Ok, two top 5 picks, technically "multiple".  I won't fight you on this one, but the Caps haven't exactly been drenched in high draft picks over the last 19 years.  Ovechkin was '04, Backstrom was '06, then they had Alzner in '07, and the 11th overall is the best they've done since then.

'14 Los Angeles

'11 Boston

'08 Detroit

Multiple top 5 picks are not a requirement.  They help, but only because they are more likely than lower picks to turn into amazing players.  But they don't always become amazing.  And not all amazing players were drafted that high.  The classic example of Zetterberg and Datsyuk being 210th and 171st respectively.

A team needs talent.  To be among the elite in the league, it needs elite talent.  High draft picks are the best chance to just grab that talent for free.  Best *chance*.  The "chance" drops as you move down the picking order, but it never hits zero.

I could go on.  My point, though, is if you are drafting in the first round every season, you are in as good a shape as you need to be.  There are a ton of outstanding players in the league's history that were taken 27th overall.  And more than a few top 5s that ended up crap.  It comes down to how you assemble/leverage the assets you collect.  And how lucky you are.  Higher picks just reduces the "luck" requirement, a bit.  In the same way that being dealt 11 reduces the luck you need to win a hand of blackjack, a bit.  I've still lost a lot of money on those hands.

edit:  I re-read your post after posting mine, and forgot to bottom line it:  a team doesn't need to completely bottom out.  It needs to stop hurting itself.  It needs to put itself in a position to build with and from the assets it collects.  That means little to no retained cap space, like buyouts or paying players who are skating for other teams.  I get that if you can't see the Flyers doing anything of note for 3 years, there's no harm in paying for dead cap space for 2 of those, but...you are limiting your options, your flexibility.

In the end, the way forward is to stop doing stupid things, don't make the stupid things already done even worse with buyouts or retained salary, and keep a hold of every pick available to you.  And if a given player is definitely not in your plans, move him for more picks and/or (preferably "and") prospects.  Collapse is not required.  Just an understanding of the situation and adhering to a rational path forward is all that is needed.  And, frankly, all that can be done.  From there, the dice roll as they will.

35 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

And you also keep Hayes around to taint the youth you bring in till he is gone

A thing that amazes me is the cognitive dissonance of the conflicting ideas that 17 yearolds can be accurately projected out 10 years, but they can also be "tainted" by a lazy player along the way.  Or a restrictive coach.  Which is it?  Can you tell me what a child is going to be like as an adult, or is it completely up in the air and subject to influence at every step of the way?

Hayes isn't tainting anyone.  No one is looking at him going, "I want to be just like Hayes, I'm going to float around in the same way, it'll be great."  He's a problem in the lineup because he represents too much cap space for an incomplete player, but that's it.  The only way his impact on the team could be worse is if you kept paying him while not getting *anything* in return.  And that's what retaining salary does.  He isn't contagious, and isn't seen as a role model by anyone that has any hope of being an impact player.  This is silly.

40 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

Plus the fact i don't know if i can stand seeing him float if i decide to tune in later.

This, I get.

41 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

I just look at it as free up 3.5mill in cap space on top of a roster spot. The contract coming back can audition till the end of the season or even flipped again for picks either way comes off the books at years end.

Except if you trade him and hold 50% of his salary, that doesn't come off the books until summer of 2026.

Look, cap space is an asset to be managed, exactly as prospects and contracts are.  If you waste it for no return, you are doing nothing but hurting the team.  As good as it might feel in the moment.  Every bit of dead cap space you have (payments to players with retained salary or buyouts) are wasting cap space for no return.

You hate him, I get it.  You want him gone, I get it.  You want to literally spend cap space to have him gone, you are making a bad call.  Again, the only thing worse than paying a one dimensional player to give you an incomplete game is paying an empty roster spot to give you no game at all.  That HAS to be lesson #1 for a GM in the capped era.  A team lives and dies by its cap space in the modern game.  The Flyers have habitually wasted cap space, both on bad signings and then how they've dealt with those bad signings.  If you sign a guy to a terrible contract, the only way to make it worse is to get rid of him but keep on dedicating cap to him.  

This seems obvious to me.  Paying for little is stupid.  Paying for nothing is moronic.

On 1/6/2023 at 4:36 PM, OccamsRazor said:

I had seen a rumor last week Hayes to Dallas Stars picking up 50% of his salary for Denis Gurianov and a pick.

 

I would do this just to not seen him anymore....

NO!

No no no.

Why?

That leaves the Flyers paying $3.5mil/season for someone not on the team anymore.  This is EXACTLY the kind of knee jerk thing that the Flyers have to stop doing.  Stop accepting trades that retain salary.  They are a sucker's bet.  Yes, the guy is a problem.  But he is also a problem that scores more points that (almost) everyone else on the team.  Removing him while not recouping all of his cap space doubles down on the stupidity of signing him in the first place.  The team gets (somehow) even worse, but still have to pay the guy.  Just no.

Buyouts are bad.  Don't do them.

Trades that retain significant salary are bad.  Don't do them.

Cap space is precious.  Don't spend it on some cathartic bowel movement to make people feel better for a week.  Hayes should be a Flyer until his contract is up, or he is traded at full salary.  It isn't like the Flyers are chasing a cup over the next 3 years.

Easy in's and easy out's are how the Flyers have done over the last 20 years.  Stop it.  Clear the decks, or don't clear the decks.  Getting rid of a player but leaving his sh|t laying around for years is only more of the same.

Ffs.  Where do I apply for the GM job?  Is it with the Flyers, or do I go through Comcast?

13 hours ago, RonJeremy said:

Basically what I am saying is the Flyers need a finisher, of course we need alot of things but we have not had a sniper in a long time.

Definitely.  They need another Gagne.  Who also killed penalties at times, but I get what you are saying.

40 minutes ago, CoachX said:

I think what's being hinted at is, Flyers need a superstar.  Most team have one. You know, that player that a fan can brag about even when the team sucks

 

Hayes isn't a superstar, so he doesn't fit the bill. You can't have beers with a buddy who is a Capitals fan, if all your armed with is Kevin Hayes

 

Oh, and said superstar has to be a good guy, humanitarian who always says the right things,  loves the city and fans, and plays for contracts that always benefit the franchise

 

So he must be a hero and a superstar

Oh, totally, and is good to kittens, and mows his neighbor's yard sometimes.  I get it.  I want that, too.  The flyers haven't had that since Lindros.  They tried to import it with Primeau, Lecavalier, Jagr.  They came close to developing it with Carter, Richards, Giroux, JVR, Patrick.  None of them really fit the bill.  And some collapsed entirely.

And it's a big deal.  That uber talent, that can not only dominate opposition and impose his will, but can become the spiritual center of the team and the fan base can move a team forward in amazing ways.  Imagine Caps fans if Ovechkin been drafted by, say, Boston.  I think they'd all be dead by now.  As opposed to what Pittsburgh became when Mario showed up.  And again when Crosby and Malkin arrived.  All amazing players, but their impact for the team was way bigger than their impact on the ice.

Cole Caufield isn't that, from what I can see.  Looks like a solid first line player, who needs some work.  A really strong player, but it isn't like he is taking charge of a team and driving it forward the way a Lemieux or Lindros or Ovechkin or Crosby or Kane or McDavid can do.  And before anyone points out those are all top-2 picks, Zetterberg and Datsyuk and Brett Hull and even a Rick Tocchet had that kind of power (Hull and Tocchet might be me fluffing the numbers a bit, they weren't world beaters, but still were huge for their teams).

The Flyers do need that.  And, I would suggest, it would solve a lot of problems.  If you can find that guy, you have a devastating top line, out of the box.  AND, you automatically make your team a destination for lesser (but still valuable) FAs.  You can build from that one-person core, hypothetically.  The grain of sand becomes a pearl.

I just don't think any GM can make that happen intentionally.  If they have the #1 pick in a draft with a generational talent, then hey, good job?  Or, if they pick some random dude in the 6th round that becomes that magic guy, then...good job?

The drafting ship has no rudder.  The higher you pick, the better your odds, broadly, but that's it:  better odds.  Pick a guy in the 8 slot, who knows?  Pick a guy in the 121st slot, who knows (Tocchet was the 121st pick in 83, Hull the 117th pick in 84, Zetterberg the 210th and Datsyuck the 171st)? 

GMs should not plan their teams' futures on specifics of the draft, nor should fans judge GMs on the draft.  Unless the GM is Mike Milbury.  Then judge the crap out of him.  Because OMG.

17 minutes ago, RonJeremy said:

Sure he’s one dimensional but plenty of pure goal scorers are. Reggie Leach was one dimensional. As I said in my previous posts, the Flyers always prefer the two way player. We really haven’t had too many exciting players or snipers in a long time and as long as you have a play maker and a another guy who can work the boards it’s nice to have a sniper on the wing like Caufiled. Remember the scouting report on Mike Bossy…all he does is score goals and not much else.

Ok.  I see where you are coming from.  Myself, I also hate one way players, but that's my own bias.  Points scored means points scored, and that's the ultimate point of the game, so fair enough.

But.  Let's talk about one way players.  You are suggesting the Flyers should go in for them more readily.  That the team needs players that put up points as their one and only thing, and their defensive contributions are secondary, if worthy of consideration at all.  Bad defensively is fine, so long as you are getting it done at the other end of the ice.  The old Penguins' approach in the late 80's.

How do you feel about Kevin Hayes?  More points than Caufield, and in less games played (because he's been scratched, as Philly won't accept defensive liabilities in exchange for flash).

Are you a fan of Hayes?  Should Torts back off, and let the guy do what he does?  The insistence on two way players being limiting and bad, as you suggest.  Or, does playing a complete game actually matter, and a player like Caufield would (also) be eaten alive by you and the rest of the fan base if they had to watch him night in/night out?

Edit:  I want to add, while +/- is generally a stat to be taken with a grain of salt, when looked at carefully, you can find wisdom in it.  For a player to be a minus, their offensive contribution has to be less than the opponents they skate against, at even strength.  Blow it off to a bad team, or a young player, or whatever, but a distinct minus player is one that tends to be involved in more goals-against than goals-for.  Just definitionally.  If you see an offensive phenom with a big minus rating, something isn't right.  It means that when he steps on the ice, it is more likely his team is scored against than his team scores.  So, all of his offensive phenom-ness is completely overwritten by the offensive opportunities other teams realize while he is skating.  A dude can score a goal every 4th shift, but if the bad guys score every 2nd shift he takes, is that a trade off that makes sense?

5 hours ago, RonJeremy said:

Caufield is looking like a future star

Is that Cole Caufield?  on pace for 65 points and a -18 in his 3rd NHL season, at the age of 22?  My gut-reaction hatred based on his last name notwithstanding, is that what stars look like in their 3rd year?  Is kind of a low bar for the title, no?  Especially as a tiny tiny guy that isn't going to bring much more than his point totals?

5 hours ago, RonJeremy said:

The situation with our players regressing and not hitting their potential is a system wide problem.

I think the problem is people thinking "potential" is a real thing.  It isn't.  Analysis of a 16/17 year old child, trying to project what they are going to be like when they are physically, mentally, and emotionally mature is hoodoo.  What were you like when you were 16?  What were you like when you were 25?  How accurately could anyone have projected 25 year old you from 16 year old you?  And you didn't have an insanely high pressure job, earning hundreds of thousands and then millions of dollars, while dealing with global media talking about you, and an entire city (and its expat fans) examining every second of your work.  All while physically battling with the best of the best of the best in your chosen career.

Draftees are children.  Kids.  Teenagers, with all of the crazy randomness that involves.  The are still in the middle of puberty.  How many disasters of classmates did you have in 10th grade, failed tests, didn't do homework, skipped class, smoked in the restroom, only to go to your 10 year reunion to discover they pulled their crap together and are doing really well for themselves?  And how many classmates did you have that seemed to have everything well in hand, only to learn they blew their life up by 25 and now work at a local supermarket, unmarried but with 3 kids, each from different partners?

They are kids.  Their "potential" is a measure of "in the best case, if everything goes perfectly, this person could end up doing X."  It is not "they will accomplish X, unless something weird happens".

There will always be Chris Grattons, and there will always be Pavel Datsyuks.  Scouts' projections of children are a vague "could be", not a "will be, barring bad coaching", or even a "will probably be".  Just "could be".  And, I should note, scouts project players' "potential" upside.  They don't investigate or prognosticate on how bad they could be, should they go sideways.  Or what might make them go sideways. 

Expect at least half of picks to fall well short of "could be".  That is normal.

Again, this is why I never take GMs to task over their drafting (unless they do something weird and dumb, like drafting a goalie with the 1st overall pick 3 years after drafting a goalie with the 4th overall pick.  Mike Milbury, you were always the worst at everything).  Or give them much credit when picks work out.  Kids will be kids, and turning into an adult is not a straight and predictable line.  We all seem to understand that generally, until it involves athletes.  Then people think the weirdness of late adolescence and early adulthood suddenly isn't a thing.

2 hours ago, CoachX said:

However, if Errson is a legit number 1, and Hart is a stellar number 1, the drop off is not as drastic. 

as mentioned, Errson was a mid-round draft pick that has been decent but not noteworthy in the A.  4 good games in the NHL, sure, but Brian Boucher had a 5 game shut out streak.

Goalies are weird.  It is almost impossible to project their performance forward through time, even if they are well established.  Serge Bobrovsky has two Vezina trophies, but posted less than a .910 S% 5 of the 13 seasons he's played.  Is he really good?  Is he really terrible?  Or, is he just all over the place, and there's no way to know what he'll be like next week, much less next season?

I impossible to actually plan for goalies, and a bad idea to even try.  And I say this as someone that plays (well, played) the position.  If there is a guy on your roster getting the job done, don't mess with it.  You can't replace that with anything resembling confidence, you would just have to hope someone else works out.

2 hours ago, CoachX said:

And Hart is the one asset that might be able to bring you multiple impact pieces...i repeat, MULTIPLE. As suggest by the article I read, he could fetch two first round picks. For this franchise, that's gold.

No, it isn't gold.  It is a chance for gold.  That is really important:  all draft picks are *chances* at quality players.  Even with extreme high end players like Bedard, it's entirely possible he blows his knee out in his first training camp, and that's the end of that.  In that specific case, maybe you take the risk, but the point is:  teams should be *very* careful of trading known quantities for chances.  If you have a useful player on your team, think very hard about getting rid of him to *maybe* bring in another useful player.

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Yes, but the point to my post was they have reduced redundancy and don't have a viable backup option.  It's a brittle architecture to begin with and dipshit fraud is just pulling plugs with not the slightest idea what he's doing.   He's a fraud. He should run for Congress in NY3.  They like that there.

Understood.  Though, I am not sure the guy doesn't have a plan.  The plan just may not have a goal anyone has considered.  I'm not suggesting I have any idea myself, sure looks like a train wreck to me.  But.  When you are talking about a guy that started a global person to person currency exchange, then started a civilian rocket company, then pioneered EVs, then revolutionized battery technology, then started designing and deploying thousands of low-cost global communications satellites, then started an AI company, then started a company working on neuro-machine interfaces, then started a company exploring cheap tunneling solutions, hard to really call him a fraud, or assume he doesn't have a plan.  Complete narcist weirdo, sure, but when a single dude has moved THAT many needles THAT far, he has some kind of plan.  The plan might very well be to destroy Twitter, but it's still a plan.  Or it could be something else entirely.  Dunno, but it's something.

13 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Don't completely agree with the cloud assessment either, but don't really want to go down that because it wasn't central to my point about fraud boy and his flushing $44B because he's too stupid for words.

no worries, not the time or place, anyway.  Just a sore spot, as we begin offloading all of our data storage from internally managed appliances, with strict and comprehensive security and audit controls in place, to "the cloud", where we'll have essentially zero control or oversight.  And the Fed already really really hates us.

On 12/31/2022 at 6:39 PM, ruxpin said:

The problem is that they are server-based and not cloud.

um.  do you not think "cloud" situations are on servers?  Of course they are on servers.  Or, more exactly, appliances.  Regardless.  It's only a question of who owns the farm your sh|t is running on.  "Not cloud" = you run it, "cloud" = someone else runs it for you.  I hate "the cloud".  Everything is worse on "the cloud".  And someone else has admin access to your stuff.

Says a security guy for highly regulated company that is looking to move all of their data "to the cloud".  Which means off of our NAS appliances and onto Google's.  And opening Excel takes 45 seconds because they can't be assed to let us run local client versions.

edit:  sorry for the OT rant.  Just really hate "the cloud."  In most cases it is losing direct and restricted control of your data in exchange for cheaper storage, in the rest it is just reverting to a mainframe/terminal situation that we outgrew 40 years ago.  Hate the cloud.

On 12/31/2022 at 1:18 PM, flyercanuck said:

Excellent long snapper too! 

he had no idea what to do with a fresh halibut, though

14 hours ago, GratefulFlyers said:

True. But the alternative is - as you describe - only a repeat performance of what's gone on for...ever. For all but the 4 years Hextall was GM.

this is what truly frightens me.  Hextall seemed (frankly, against my projections as to what he would do, being an alum and all) to steer to the correct wind.  Let the messes expire, don't waste resources to remain a fringe competitor in the meantime, build back internal strength, and then move forward once the prospects and cap space allowed.  And he was fired for it.  Is there a reason to think the next guy wouldn't be subject to the same impossible situation?  Or are the Flyers actually and permanently screwed, because being in the top 66% of the league (i.e., a bubble playoff team) is good enough for the owners of the team?

Was there more to the Hextall firing than him thinking 5 years out, while ownership wanted plans aimed at 2 years out?  Really don't know, from the outside sure looked like a "you didn't sign that top FA to a crippling contract, you are gone" situation to me.  But I, again, was on sabbatical.