Finding future NHL players beyond the first round is good drafting. Finding future major impact players beyond round 1 is largely good fortune.
Example: Tampa took Dominik Masin and Johnathan MacLeod ahead of Point in 2014 (after DeAngelo in Rd 1). That wasn't some brilliant drafting strategy. It was good fortune on the outcome. - bmeltzer
I don't understand why this drafting later argument gets so much credence here.
You tell your kid to study hard. In his down time, you insist he learn the violin.
Turns out he is not much of a student. However, he develops into a first rate violinist.
Do you not get any credit for the last because you prioritized studying over music lessons?
There are no other scenarios. That risk will always be there even if he has behaved in the interim, (as he likely will, because he knows if he doesn't his NHL career is over otherwise). DeAngelo will be 26 this year, not 16.
And waive him? We would have to bolt the door from being overrun by suitors looking to pick up a guy on a long term deal on his nth flameout, right?
And thanks for straightening me out about corporations. As a professional economist flitting between academia and corporate life for decades, I am grateful for the piercing insight. - PT21
You remind me of the blond hair guy in Good Will Hunting. Talking all smart in the bar only to get punked down.
Did I ever say there wont be any risk? I didn't. There are other scenarios. You said if he plays good you then what sign him long term. That isn't the only scenario. Though keep telling us what a professional you are in life.
Where did I said give him a long term deal, then waive him? Go back and re-read. If you sign him 1 year it don't work you waive. No harm no foul.
Location: Be nice from now on, NJ Joined: 03.17.2006
Jul 8 @ 2:54 PM ET
You remind me of the blond hair guy in Good Will Hunting. Talking all smart in the bar only to get punked down.
Did I ever say there wont be any risk? I didn't. There are other scenarios. You said if he plays good you then what sign him long term. That isn't the only scenario. Though keep telling us what a professional you are in life.
Where did I said give him a long term deal, then waive him? Go back and re-read. If you sign him 1 year it don't work you waive. No harm no foul.
You don't like the guy I get it. - hello it's me 2050
You remind me of the blond hair guy in Good Will Hunting. Talking all smart in the bar only to get punked down.
Did I ever say there wont be any risk? I didn't. There are other scenarios. You said if he plays good you then what sign him long term. That isn't the only scenario. Though keep telling us what a professional you are in life.
Where did I said give him a long term deal, then waive him? Go back and re-read. If you sign him 1 year it don't work you waive. No harm no foul.
You don't like the guy I get it. - hello it's me 2050
You are behaving like MJL at multiple levels, complete with large edits of posts and entire paragraphs disappearing.
Yeah, you cut him if he misbehaves during the short term low pay deal. Now lets look for the 3rd and last time at what happens if he doesn't, and things work out in both hockey and behavior (which was my entire point).
Do you not sign him? In that case, you might as well get a vet like Nisky on a 2 year deal. The play might be a little worse, but the risk will be lower during the 1-2 years.
Do you sign him?: In that case, you risk getting stuck up the creek w/o a paddle.
And sure, I have contempt for the guy. Its got nothing to do with his personal politics. No one has shilled harder for Seth than me here, and he is suspected to be (and his parents are explicitly) Trump supporters. Difference is, Seth is a pro.
And oh, by the way, the only people you will ever punk in the remainder of your life are the cheap AMP workers. And even they probably laugh at you.
You are behaving like MJL at multiple levels, complete with large edits of posts and entire paragraphs disappearing.
Yeah, you cut him if he misbehaves during the short term low pay deal. Now lets look for the 3rd and last time at what happens if he doesn't, and things work out in both hockey and behavior (which was my entire point).
Do you not sign him? In that case, you might as well get a vet like Nisky on a 2 year deal. The play might be a little worse, but the risk will be lower during the 1-2 years.
Do you sign him?: In that case, you risk getting stuck up the creek w/o a paddle.
And sure, I have contempt for the guy. Its got nothing to do with his personal politics. No one has shilled harder for Seth than me here, and he is suspected to be (and his parents are explicitly) Trump supporters. Difference is, Seth is a pro.
And oh, by the way, the only people you will ever punk in the remainder of your life are the cheap AMP workers. And even they probably laugh at you.
Later, homie. - PT21
100% false you turd.
If things work out in both hockey and behavior you can trade him and sell high can you not?
Homie is that cool guy professional lingo? Do you wear black socks to the beach with your sandals? You wear new balance sneaks?
If things work out in both hockey and behavior you can trade him and sell high can you not?
Homie is that cool guy professional lingo? Do you wear black socks to the beach with your sandals? You wear new balance sneaks? - hello it's me 2050
In other words, you don't intend to sign him anyway, even if things work out. In which case, I suggest you reread my post, which mentions that in that case, it would make more hockey sense to take a safer vet.
As for the selling him high option, it will not work (unless he is lights out, which is unlikely) for the exact same reason you wouldn't want to sigh him long term yourself. Teams will be leery of him for long term commitments. Because you know, those teams are run by the same woke crowd.
And thanks for your interest in my footwear, but I confess I am not much of a beach person. When I go running, I wear Brooks, which I highly recommend. When I play hoops with the young bucks, I wear Yonex for ankle stability as I have flat feet and tend to twist my ankle a lot.
Anything else you wanna ask me before you get your next ban?
14. Philadelphia Flyers: Fedor Svechkov, C, Togliatti-VHL
All things considered, I do think the Flyers would like to address their organizational depth at center in this draft, which is why Sillinger going one pick before them in this mock is tough. Fabian Lysell would fill a stylistic need for high-end speed, so he’d certainly be an option in this scenario, even though he’s a wing. And while the goalies falling to No. 13 here is intriguing, I wonder if the Flyers really want to spark the inevitable Carson Wentz/Jalen Hurts comparison in Philadelphia with Carter Hart by taking a goalie so early. But let’s go with Svechkov here, a center and a riser on draft boards. He fits the bill as the kind of two-way player that Flyers scouts tend to like, and his numbers as an 18-year old in the VHL against men proves that he’s not lacking offensive skill, either. -Charlie O’Connor
(I have to confess I didn't realize there was this side to him. This from the guy who wouldn't even eat a slice of cake because it makes pure nutritional sense.
Finding future NHL players beyond the first round is good drafting. Finding future major impact players beyond round 1 is largely good fortune.
Example: Tampa took Dominik Masin and Johnathan MacLeod ahead of Point in 2014 (after DeAngelo in Rd 1). That wasn't some brilliant drafting strategy. It was good fortune on the outcome. - bmeltzer
In other words, you don't intend to sign him anyway, even if things work out. In which case, I suggest you reread my post, which mentions that in that case, it would make more hockey sense to take a safer vet.
As for the selling him high option, it will not work (unless he is lights out, which is unlikely) for the exact same reason you wouldn't want to sigh him long term yourself. Teams will be leery of him for long term commitments. Because you know, those teams are run by the same woke crowd.
And thanks for your interest in my footwear, but I confess I am not much of a beach person. When I go running, I wear Brooks, which I highly recommend. When I play hoops with the young bucks, I wear Yonex for ankle stability as I have flat feet and tend to twist my ankle a lot.
Anything else you wanna ask me before you get your next ban? - PT21
You said later. Why are you responding? You have an addictive personality.
Not a beach fan as you probably have that alabaster white skin.
How long were yo marreid before your wife left you?
In other words, you don't intend to sign him anyway, even if things work out. In which case, I suggest you reread my post, which mentions that in that case, it would make more hockey sense to take a safer vet.
As for the selling him high option, it will not work (unless he is lights out, which is unlikely) for the exact same reason you wouldn't want to sigh him long term yourself. Teams will be leery of him for long term commitments. Because you know, those teams are run by the same woke crowd.
And thanks for your interest in my footwear, but I confess I am not much of a beach person. When I go running, I wear Brooks, which I highly recommend. When I play hoops with the young bucks, I wear Yonex for ankle stability as I have flat feet and tend to twist my ankle a lot.
Anything else you wanna ask me before you get your next ban? - PT21
It's extremely ironic that a guy who is making personal references and insults to posters who aren't even involved and repeatedly brings politics into it, such as the repeated digs at Trump supporters, is commenting on someone else getting a ban.
