Like who?
- LeftCoaster

Someone recently drafted in the top ten, like Provolov for example. Don't see the point in paying the price for an already established guy you have to protect. Might as well cash a few of these decent medium upside guys in for a guy with a higher ceiling.

For 4 seasons it was pretty good. They needed to resolve some things as the series went on, reward the viewers for investing their time. Instead they just kept throwing "mysteriuos poop" at us over and over again until there were just too many unexplained balls in the air to keep my interest.
In the end they couldnt tie up all the loose strings and it made for one of the worst finales of all time.
Also, the writers kept assuring us that it wasnt going to end up being a boring and predictable religious angle, yet thats exactly what it ended up being.
- hunglikeapuck

Couldn't disagree more. Lost was a work of art, not a democratic exercise in giving the audience what it wants. If you want to be rewarded for watching, Katherine Heigle and Auston Kucher make some pretty saccharine movies.

I hate this idea that Lost owed something to its audience that it didn't deliver on.

Someone recently drafted in the top ten, like Provolov for example. Don't see the point in paying the price for an already established guy you have to protect. Might as well cash a few of these decent medium upside guys in for a guy with a higher ceiling.
- James_Tanner

rov

We'll need them when we make the playoffs? ( I think we're bottom 5-10 but you don't )
- Garnie

Leafs won't be a bad team at all. They likely aren't good enough to compete but not bad enough for a great draft pick. Partly why I think they should trade Leo and JVR. But fact is, Matthews, Nylander and Kadri make a pretty sick lineup down the middle and Gardiner, Rielly Carrick and Marincin make a decent top four with Anderson in net I don't see them being a bad team. Especially with Babcock.

Bozak will absolutely be traded, likely closer to the deadline. The Leafs could have 6-7 rookies up front and Carrick on the point, but they won't start the season with more than these 5(listed in order of best to less best) Matthews, Marner, Brown, Nylander, Leivo(stupid waivers so he gets a spot). Once Bozak and another vet plug gets moved out then Hyman and Soshnikov or whoever is performing in the AHL will move up.

The good thing about our rookies though is that they aren't all 18-19.

If we could get a proven first pair D who is 23-25 for JVR then sure, do it. DO IT NOW! I get the feeling that option isn't out there. I mean Taylor Hall was only worth a Larsson so by that standard JVR could return us less than Larsson. Pass. I'll keep our only 1st line forward if that is going to be the return.

The GMs in this league are smart. They know hockey. I know you think they are all useless because you have something against hockey players, scouts, coaches and managers but they know what they are doing. Nobody is trading Courtnall's for Kordic's these days.

BTW Stranger Things was great. I liked the plot but it's a kids show. That's fine though. Like every Star Wars movie that isn't IV. And the Clone Wars cartoon that I'm into season 5 of. Great stories. Kids shows. Still entertaining.
- Njuice

No they aren't. At least half of them deserve to be replaced by me or someone less qualified than me. And at least two trades happened recently that were objectively worse than Kordic for Courtnall, which, at least when it happened was somewhat justifiable.

I don't know what qualifies as a kids show, seems like something someone who thinks NHL GMs are smart would say!! (Kidding)

Leafs won't be a bad team at all. They likely aren't good enough to compete but not bad enough for a great draft pick. Partly why I think they should trade Leo and JVR. But fact is, Matthews, Nylander and Kadri make a pretty sick lineup down the middle and Gardiner, Rielly Carrick and Marincin make a decent top four with Anderson in net I don't see them being a bad team. Especially with Babcock.
- James_Tanner

If the younglings come in hot, who knows what can happen. I agree. The Leafs will be a decent team. They could be fighting for 8th but they could also finish near the bottom of the league(no more garbage tank teams like Buf and Edm) so who knows.

Personally, I'm much more confident in Connor Brown than I am in W Nylander right now. Nyl's offensive skills are sick. Insane. But he needs a ton of Babcock coaching to teach him where to go without the puck. I've seen him backcheck super hard. Look over his shoulder at the guy he should cover and the just...not do it. Next think you know frigging Kyle Quincey walks in over the blue line and blasts a one timer in the net. Meanwhile...Nylander had already backchecked past him, looked at him, and then just floated into no man's land. There are other examples, but that's the most blatant one.

As of right now, Nylander is not a top 6 center. That could change in say...20 games. Or 1 or 2 seasons. I have faith. He has the skills. Just needs the hockey sense.

Yep. And whatever you think of swimming, if Penny Oleksiak didn't make you proud to be a Canadian this week, you're a lousy Canadian.
- DoubleDown

Gee I guess I'm a lousy Canadian, cause I could not give less of a crap! Though, to be fair, the opinion of someone who judges another's level of Canadianness based on their interest in a swimmer is not something I deign to be important.

Hey James,

Thanks for the interesting read as always. My friend and I just started a podcast channel focused on the Buffalo Sabres. We're brand new to it, so it could certainly use some improvement. If you're bored and have the time, check out the following link to take a listen: https://www.youtube.com/c.../UCCP261uouIsF6WlhhaHyJ3A

We currently have posted two podcast sessions (adding to the ridiculous number of podcasts out there!)
- nova710

Hey man I'll try to give it a chance, but I might forget to come back to this. If you PM me the link I'll listen for sure. Thanks

No they aren't. At least half of them deserve to be replaced by me or someone less qualified than me. And at least two trades happened recently that were objectively worse than Kordic for Courtnall, which, at least when it happened was somewhat justifiable.

I don't know what qualifies as a kids show, seems like something someone who thinks NHL GMs are smart would say!! (Kidding)
- James_Tanner

Kids show might not be the word, but it is a show that directly targets tweens. Like every Star Wars that isn't IV and the cartoon Clone Wars that I'm currently watching because it has cool plots. And Luke Skywalker - who is a whiny loser - is not he most powerful person in the universe. It's about random dialogue and character relationship development that is targeted towards...well kids.

I won't argue with you about hockey. You literally believe you could do a better job than half the GM's in the league and nothing can change your mind. I believe it is absurd. We'll leave it at that.

I'm curious to hear the two trades worse than Kordic for Courtnall and also the reasoning behind that trade that you think makes sense. We were too young at the time to get the management side of the game.

Kids show might not be the word, but it is a show that directly targets tweens. Like every Star Wars that isn't IV and the cartoon Clone Wars that I'm currently watching because it has cool plots. And Luke Skywalker - who is a whiny loser - is not he most powerful person in the universe. It's about random dialogue and character relationship development that is targeted towards...well kids.

I won't argue with you about hockey. You literally believe you could do a better job than half the GM's in the league and nothing can change your mind. I believe it is absurd. We'll leave it at that.

I'm curious to hear the two trades worse than Kordic for Courtnall and also the reasoning behind that trade that you think makes sense. We were too young at the time to get the management side of the game.
- Njuice

You know what trades I mean. And I don't know why it's ridiculous to think I could be an NHL GM - it's a relatively easy job. You just assign people to get you information and you surround yourself with intelligent people.

Hire a cap expert, a game theory expert, a lead mathematician, an old school hockey guy, a communication expert and a critical thinking expert. You sit around the table and make fun of Peter Chiarelli until he sends you his best player for a box of day old doughnuts and then you drive home in your limo. Easy-peasy.

You know what trades I mean. And I don't know why it's ridiculous to think I could be an NHL GM - it's a relatively easy job. You just assign people to get you information and you surround yourself with intelligent people.

Hire a cap expert, a game theory expert, a lead mathematician, an old school hockey guy, a communication expert and a critical thinking expert. You sit around the table and make fun of Peter Chiarelli until he sends you his best player for a box of day old doughnuts and then you drive home in your limo. Easy-peasy.
- James_Tanner

Well, on that reply. Respect. Properly spelled. None of this respek BS. The fact that you realize you would have to surround yourself with the proper advisers gives me hope for you. So you admit you think you could be a GM, but not a coach? But why do you assume that pres' and GM's don't hire experts? Of course they do.

I truly don't know what trades you are talking about but you mentioned Chia-pet-relli. Obviously you are talking Hall for Larsson. Which was... shocking. But that's the market. If you need Taylor Hall to get you a Larsson then WTF(yup, I did that) kind of a D can you get for JVR?

If the other trade you mention is Weber/Subban that is not a comparable. That's elite traded for elite. If it were today, as a Leaf fan I'd take Subban based on age. But if I believed my team was a contender right now(oh Habs you are funny) then I would take Weber. Today.

Kordic was a drug addict goon.(He's dead btw, cuz of...probly drugs) Courtnall was a player with talent about to enter his prime.

This would be like trading....hmmm.. Yakupov for Colton Orr. I think that's the comparable.

Either way. I have respect for that fact that you admit you don't know everything.(I'm an arrogant know-it-all type of person.... as are you... so this is good. Dr Melfie would be impressed)

Stranger Things was really good but I thought the finale was so so. That said I don't think it was supposed to be a big finale because they're clearly going for a long run. One complaint with the first season: not enough to Matthew Modine.
- DoubleDown

Just finished. I was fine with the last ep but i really hope its one of these anthology series. If they try to carry this story out into another season it will be terrible

Just finished. I was fine with the last ep but i really hope its one of these anthology series. If they try to carry this story out into another season it will be terrible
- Crimsoninja

Word so far is that each season will be completely different.

Word so far is that each season will be completely different.
- Mordecai

i just read the opposite :/

Hey James. Just read your last blog. After a while of wanting to, I finally picked up my first King book and am doing an expanded reading of The Dark Tower series. After some light research online (mostly spoiler free which was hard to pull off) the reading order I came up with was: 1. The Talisman 2. Eyes of the Dragon 3. The Gunslinger 4. Drawing of the Three 5. The Stand 6. Wasteland 7. It 8. Wizard in Glass 9. Salem's Lot 10. The Mist 11. Regulators 12. Desperation 13. Everything's Eventual 14. Little Sisters of Eluria 15. The Wind Through the Keyhole 16. Hearts in Atlantis 17. Wolves of the Calla 18. Song of Sussanah 19. Insomnia 20. Black House 21. The Dark Tower.

I'm on Drawing of the Three now and I'm absolutely loving the experience.

As a King super fan, what do you think of that order? Would you change anything, add any books I missed, or take out any you don't think are that important? Some people on line suggested reading Insomnia fairly early even though it has mostly to do with the seventh DT book.

You know what trades I mean. And I don't know why it's ridiculous to think I could be an NHL GM - it's a relatively easy job. You just assign people to get you information and you surround yourself with intelligent people.

Hire a cap expert, a game theory expert, a lead mathematician, an old school hockey guy, a communication expert and a critical thinking expert. You sit around the table and make fun of Peter Chiarelli until he sends you his best player for a box of day old doughnuts and then you drive home in your limo. Easy-peasy.
- James_Tanner

You cant even do that yourself?

Im sorry James but this post is ridicilous. With this logic any job is "easy-peasy". Maybe you have the hockeysense to be a decent GM, but the fact that you pisses off about 100 readers in every blog you write, you would probably be the most hated man in the league. Heck even in all of NA sports.

They don't just hand jobs to every former player. These guys are selected because of their superior knowledge of the game and the almost always work their up in organizations or junior leagues. Just because someone is a hockey player that doesn't mean he can't also be a great coach or manager. Patrick Roy is probably not a great coach, but he did work his way up by coaching for something like 6-8 years in the QMJHL.

Shanahan is a pretty smart executive. He worked many jobs in and around the NHL before becoming president of the Leafs.

These guys aren't just random goons that played in the NHL. They tend to be the smartest of the former players and they have way more knowledge about hockey than anyone who focuses solely on stats. Because they know about all the tiny little details and abilities that players and teams need to generate those stats.

The moronic former hockey players who run the show aren't ignoring advanced stats, but its far more important to know WHY a certain player has a certain stat. What does the player actually do. Do they give 100% effort every shift? Good at board battles. Good/smart positioning. Good vision. Great anticipation. Good passer. Selective passer. Solid stick checks. Explosive speed/acceleration, motivational teammate, etc. These are the types of things that generate results.

People who have been around the game their whole lives have a significant advantage because they have way more knowledge of the game. That doesn't mean it's not possible for some management consultant who has never played the sport to be a good GM, it just means he has way more to learn about the sport and it's easier to train somebody who already knows the sport about the management side of things than it is to train a business executive about the sport side of things.

Ideally you want someone with management skills(or who can develop them) and hockey knowledge(who will continue to develop it).
- Njuice

Excellent post

Just like any sport there are only a certain percentage of teams that have the insight to win championships.

For example the New York Yankees, George Steinbrenner takes over the Yankees, they win championships, to be fair they won championships before he got there, but gets suspended or walks away dry spell, comes back they win 4 in a row and are constantly in the playoffs. Passes away and are slowly getting worse every year.

Rocky takes over after his father passes away and he does a 180 with this team, went from one of the worst franchises to one of the best in hockey

So I take it one step further, the team doesn't start with the GM it begins with the owner, Illitch is what 90 years old and in a way the Red Wings and Tigers have been in decline which leads me to believe Illitch isn't involved in making decisions for those teams anymore, but to be fair they did lose one of the best defenceman ever in hockey.

Vegas Roughriders!
We need more Roughriders!

Well, on that reply. Respect. Properly spelled. None of this respek BS. The fact that you realize you would have to surround yourself with the proper advisers gives me hope for you. So you admit you think you could be a GM, but not a coach? But why do you assume that pres' and GM's don't hire experts? Of course they do.

I truly don't know what trades you are talking about but you mentioned Chia-pet-relli. Obviously you are talking Hall for Larsson. Which was... shocking. But that's the market. If you need Taylor Hall to get you a Larsson then WTF(yup, I did that) kind of a D can you get for JVR?

If the other trade you mention is Weber/Subban that is not a comparable. That's elite traded for elite. If it were today, as a Leaf fan I'd take Subban based on age. But if I believed my team was a contender right now(oh Habs you are funny) then I would take Weber. Today.

Kordic was a drug addict goon.(He's dead btw, cuz of...probly drugs) Courtnall was a player with talent about to enter his prime.

This would be like trading....hmmm.. Yakupov for Colton Orr. I think that's the comparable.

Either way. I have respect for that fact that you admit you don't know everything.(I'm an arrogant know-it-all type of person.... as are you... so this is good. Dr Melfie would be impressed)
- Njuice

Hey man, I think it just comes with the territory of being a writer that it seems like you think you know everything. In university a teacher who I had for six or seven classes (small school) told me I was the only loud-mouthed ego-maniac who tended to take control of classrooms he'd ever met that was interested in changing their mind or incorporating the views of others.

I always took that to heart and I know that when you're in charge of something you need to surround yourself with people smarter than you who will tell you when you're wrong or full of crap.

The only reason I think I'd be a good GM is because I am pretty good at taking a bunch of information and sifting it down to a decision - which I think should be the primary role of a GM. Part of my problem is that guys like Maloney and Chiarelli seem to make decisions on a whim based on what they think and get their yes-men to agree with. Anyone who challenges them gets seen as a usurper - like the rumour that Tippett and Maloney fell out over Dylan Strome playing in the OHL. Look who's in charge now.

Hey James. Just read your last blog. After a while of wanting to, I finally picked up my first King book and am doing an expanded reading of The Dark Tower series. After some light research online (mostly spoiler free which was hard to pull off) the reading order I came up with was: 1. The Talisman 2. Eyes of the Dragon 3. The Gunslinger 4. Drawing of the Three 5. The Stand 6. Wasteland 7. It 8. Wizard in Glass 9. Salem's Lot 10. The Mist 11. Regulators 12. Desperation 13. Everything's Eventual 14. Little Sisters of Eluria 15. The Wind Through the Keyhole 16. Hearts in Atlantis 17. Wolves of the Calla 18. Song of Sussanah 19. Insomnia 20. Black House 21. The Dark Tower.

I'm on Drawing of the Three now and I'm absolutely loving the experience.

As a King super fan, what do you think of that order? Would you change anything, add any books I missed, or take out any you don't think are that important? Some people on line suggested reading Insomnia fairly early even though it has mostly to do with the seventh DT book.
- Victoro311

I think that order is OK, but I'd personally just sort of go through the order he wrote them - Carrie and the Shining don't have much to do with the DT, but everything else is sort of connected and even the Shining2 has DT references, so I'd just sort of go through everything cause even the ones without Tower connections are connected.

I think that order is OK, but I'd personally just sort of go through the order he wrote them - Carrie and the Shining don't have much to do with the DT, but everything else is sort of connected and even the Shining2 has DT references, so I'd just sort of go through everything cause even the ones without Tower connections are connected.
- James_Tanner

Thanks for the response!

Anyways, that'd be cool if I had that much time on my hands that I can read through Kings' entire anthology, but I'm starting up grad school this week so I'm trying to be economical about this and really read only the ones that are more explicitly connected to the DT to give myself a shot at finishing by winter so I can see the movie in theatres. Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey are two of my favorite actors in the game.

Vrbata back?


Wft?

Thanks for the response!

Anyways, that'd be cool if I had that much time on my hands that I can read through Kings' entire anthology, but I'm starting up grad school this week so I'm trying to be economical about this and really read only the ones that are more explicitly connected to the DT to give myself a shot at finishing by winter so I can see the movie in theatres. Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey are two of my favorite actors in the game.
- Victoro311

If that's the case, you could skip quite a few because a lot of the connections are flimsy and just sort of there as easter eggs. You'd def. want to read Salem's Lot and the Stand, and the short story Everything is Eventual and the first long section of Hearts in Atlantis. You could easily leave everything else until later.

Eyes of the Dragon is a good prelude to the series, I almost forgot, but I'd read that first.

Plus, even doing everything, I don't know if I like the order you suggested because I think there are spoilers by reading certain books right before certain DT books. Like, it'd be better to read hearts in Atlantis first and just wait to see when it shows up. for example.

Vrbata back?


Wft?
- Tumbleweed

good depth.

If that's the case, you could skip quite a few because a lot of the connections are flimsy and just sort of there as easter eggs. You'd def. want to read Salem's Lot and the Stand, and the short story Everything is Eventual and the first long section of Hearts in Atlantis. You could easily leave everything else until later.

Eyes of the Dragon is a good prelude to the series, I almost forgot, but I'd read that first.

Plus, even doing everything, I don't know if I like the order you suggested because I think there are spoilers by reading certain books right before certain DT books. Like, it'd be better to read hearts in Atlantis first and just wait to see when it shows up. for example.
- James_Tanner

Gotcha. Yeah I read The Talisman and Eyes of the Dragon before everything as it sounded like Eyes of the Dragon was as you said a good prelude to the series and The Talisman was just kind of the first book I could get my hands on.

EDIT: how'd you like the last episode of Stranger Things by the way? The "spoiler" you got the other day was actually pretty off base and completely misses the point of the twist at the end.