I had no idea any current team could boast 10 first line players. The Leafs are so deep Kerfoot might not even make the team!
- gergeswillems

Oh great, now they'll all want Nylander/Marner/Matthews money.




Tanners world:

1 first line for 50 mill

3 4th lines..due to all the other 2/3 liners signing on different teams for more then league min.

"A guy like Schmaltz has first line talent".

Hmm, then it seems the Coyotes have a 1C then?

Yet immediately after the Kessel trade, Tanner says the Coyotes are just missing a 1C to go along with Kessel and lead them to contending status.

Days later, Tanner suggests the Coyotes should make a big trade to acquire Patrick Kane, who is a winger, and must of course waive his NMC to join the Coyotes, who presumably have just gutted whatever talent they do have to acquire Kane. Seems likely.

Do you have ADD or something? Because you seem to change your story every 5 minutes. [/img]

"A guy like Schmaltz has first line talent".

Hmm, then it seems the Coyotes have a 1C then?

Yet immediately after the Kessel trade, Tanner says the Coyotes are just missing a 1C to go along with Kessel and lead them to contending status.

Days later, Tanner suggests the Coyotes should make a big trade to acquire Patrick Kane, who is a winger, and must of course waive his NMC to join the Coyotes, who presumably have just gutted whatever talent they do have to acquire Kane. Seems likely.

Do you have ADD or something? Because you seem to change your story every 5 minutes.
- uofcguy[/img]

Alexandre Daigle had first line talent but it didn't quite turn out that way. Tanner fails to recognize that talent alone does not make the player.

Oh great, now they'll all want Nylander/Marner/Matthews money.




Tanners world:

1 first line for 50 mill

3 4th lines..due to all the other 2/3 liners signing on different teams for more then league min.
- Garnie

All 10 of them are signing 1 year offer sheets! Just think of all the first round picks the Leafs will get Garnie!😉

Your posting is lazy. Your trolling is weak. Your hockey knowledge is zero. Your whining is predictable.
- gergeswillems

Your analysis is spot on.

Your analysis is spot on.
- blackhawk24

Your analysis even more!

It's all fake news and alternative facts.
MAGA!!! TRUMP 2020!!!

Alexandre Daigle had first line talent but it didn't quite turn out that way. Tanner fails to recognize that talent alone does not make the player.
- gergeswillems

Well actually, you just gave my proper response back to that guy - both of you can't be right here!

It's all fake news and alternative facts.
MAGA!!! TRUMP 2020!!!

- Levit8

I appreciate you taking time to admit that none of your criticisms or thoughts about anything count for anything, ever.

Day after the Schmaltz contract:



Day after the Dvorak contract:



Today:



So they were very good/great contracts, with minimal risk and no real downside when they were signed, but now they're bad contracts? Which is it?
- jmatchett383

It is just more of the great "Tannerism" that we all come out to devour. Hockey knowledge...zero. Stay true to his words....never. Back-track and never acknowledge any wrong...consistantly. Makes for fun reading, as unintelligible as it may be.

I appreciate you taking time to admit that none of your criticisms or thoughts about anything count for anything, ever.
- James_Tanner

Nothing says anti intellectual like shutting down a discussion for fear of losing the battle of ideas.

Well actually, you just gave my proper response back to that guy - both of you can't be right here!
- James_Tanner

Being right. Something you know nothing about.

Nothing says anti intellectual like shutting down a discussion for fear of losing the battle of ideas.
- Takemedrunkimhome

He lost that battle a long time ago. Tanner is a feeble minded troll who embarrasses himself daily with his incredible lack of hockey knowledge, insecurity and horrible trolling. All to make $6.50 so he can buy another Back Street Boys CD.

It's all fake news and alternative facts.
MAGA!!! TRUMP 2020!!!

- Levit8

It's going to be a great time leading up to another Trump victory! How dare he give us one of the best economies, lowest unemployment rates in history!! AAAAAHHHHHH

Nothing says anti intellectual like shutting down a discussion for fear of losing the battle of ideas.
- Takemedrunkimhome

Well with "great people on both sides" I did not see this coming!

Well with "great people on both sides" I did not see this coming!
- James_Tanner

Hard to convince if you refuse to engage

Tanner is a coward. Always has been. Always will be. He knows I'll embarrass him in any hockey discussion so he'll do what he always does. Whine to a mod and get me banned for the 100th time and erase all the comments. It doesn't work. I'll still come back to rub his face in his own stupidity.
- gergeswillems

The thing is, I don't even recognize your picture and you have this whole thing going on with me that is extremely one sided. You seem cool, let's hang out sometime.

I appreciate you taking time to admit that none of your criticisms or thoughts about anything count for anything, ever.
- James_Tanner

Hook, line and sinker.

Jesus, you're stupid.

It's going to be a great time leading up to another Trump victory! How dare he give us one of the best economies, lowest unemployment rates in history!! AAAAAHHHHHH
- rrentz

And this after Hussein said we'd never see 3% GDP growth. "Just get used to it" he said. As long as dumbocrats are in the White House, our economy will be poop. It usually takes a superior republican to fix things. And since all republicans are superior, well...you know.

The thing is, I don't even recognize your picture and you have this whole thing going on with me that is extremely one sided. You seem cool, let's hang out sometime.
- James_Tanner

Triggered. 😂

It's going to be a great time leading up to another Trump victory! How dare he give us one of the best economies, lowest unemployment rates in history!! AAAAAHHHHHH
- rrentz

I thought Stephen King put it best:

"Like giving steroids to a horse. It runs like hell until it drops dead."

Kinda tough to call yourself a conservative while compiling a trillion dollar deficit.

But hey, it's fun to be openly racist, right? MAGA!

And this after Hussein said we'd never see 3% GDP growth. "Just get used to it" he said. As long as dumbocrats are in the White House, our economy will be poop. It usually takes a superior republican to fix things. And since all republicans are superior, well...you know.

- Levit8

Facts can be terribly inconvenient.

https://www.aeaweb.org/re...ter-democrats-white-house

A large political science literature has found that better economic performance in the runup to an election is closely associated with the political fate of the incumbent party. It seems that on some level voters hold presidents responsible for the economy, even though most observers think the president actually has relatively little control over it.

Sure, presidents have a few tools at their disposal: they can appoint pliant Fed chairs, push for changes to taxes and regulations, and try to negotiate new trade deals. But their control is naturally limited by the power of Congress, long-term economic trends outside their control, and the potential for disruptions coming from abroad.

Then again, the historical record shows that the economy has done quite a bit better under Democratic presidents since World War II, with faster GDP growth, more reductions in unemployment, greater industrial production, and higher corporate profits. Is this just statistical noise, or is it actually evidence that Democratic presidents (and policies) are better for the American economy? A study appearing in the April issue of the American Economic Review tries to find the root cause of the economic growth gap between Democrats and Republicans.

In Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration (PDF), authors Alan Blinder and Mark Watson compare the economic records of Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, focusing on the period since World War II when data on gross domestic product and employment have been collected in a consistent manner. They find GDP tends to grow much faster under Democratic presidents (averaging 4.33% per year) than Republican presidents (averaging 2.54% per year).

The authors note that this 1.8 point GDP growth gap between the parties is quite large -- roughly equivalent to the 2.0 point gap between the booming 1990’s and the much rockier economy of the last ten years.

Facts can be terribly inconvenient.

https://www.aeaweb.org/re...ter-democrats-white-house

A large political science literature has found that better economic performance in the runup to an election is closely associated with the political fate of the incumbent party. It seems that on some level voters hold presidents responsible for the economy, even though most observers think the president actually has relatively little control over it.

Sure, presidents have a few tools at their disposal: they can appoint pliant Fed chairs, push for changes to taxes and regulations, and try to negotiate new trade deals. But their control is naturally limited by the power of Congress, long-term economic trends outside their control, and the potential for disruptions coming from abroad.

Then again, the historical record shows that the economy has done quite a bit better under Democratic presidents since World War II, with faster GDP growth, more reductions in unemployment, greater industrial production, and higher corporate profits. Is this just statistical noise, or is it actually evidence that Democratic presidents (and policies) are better for the American economy? A study appearing in the April issue of the American Economic Review tries to find the root cause of the economic growth gap between Democrats and Republicans.

In Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration (PDF), authors Alan Blinder and Mark Watson compare the economic records of Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, focusing on the period since World War II when data on gross domestic product and employment have been collected in a consistent manner. They find GDP tends to grow much faster under Democratic presidents (averaging 4.33% per year) than Republican presidents (averaging 2.54% per year).

The authors note that this 1.8 point GDP growth gap between the parties is quite large -- roughly equivalent to the 2.0 point gap between the booming 1990’s and the much rockier economy of the last ten years.
- Atomic Wedgie

Bravo...engaging in ideas. A wild concept

I thought Stephen King put it best:

"Like giving steroids to a horse. It runs like hell until it drops dead."

Kinda tough to call yourself a conservative while compiling a trillion dollar deficit.

But hey, it's fun to be openly racist, right? MAGA!
- Atomic Wedgie

Stephen King? Really? Why don't you just quote Tanner. It would be just as effective.

Speaking of being openly racist, let's talk about a time when the civil rights movement was really gaining steam and our elected officials had the opportunity to make strides for the marginalized. In response they chose to...wait for it...put a man on the moon. Yep, that's some real helping of minorities going on there. In contrast, we have the lowest unemployment rate among minorities EVER!!! It is true that facts are inconvenient.

How big is your echo chamber? Is it big enough for your safe space?

And this after Hussein said we'd never see 3% GDP growth. "Just get used to it" he said. As long as dumbocrats are in the White House, our economy will be poop. It usually takes a superior republican to fix things. And since all republicans are superior, well...you know.

- Levit8

Just one more little chart for you to chew on: