Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Potvin29

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 958
1
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Matthews or BUST
« on: July 22, 2016, 09:58:55 AM »
I mean, if the bonuses were a sticking point, and I'm not even saying that they are, do you really think that Brisson would have gone to the media and said "I had to fight tooth and nail to get this 1st overall pick the contract that he deserves because Lou is a dinosaur"?

Most of the posters here who firmly believe that this was completely fabricated are the ones saying "don't believe everything you read in the paper".

That's not what I am saying anyways.  I'm saying do not believe people who have no tangible connection to the negotiations and who do not, in their stories on the supposed negotiations, provide any evidence of having inside knowledge of the negotiations.  As I tried to make clear in my previous posts, which part of McGran's column has anything I should believe as true?  There's not even a "source with intimate knowledge of the negotiations" to at least give the illusion of him having sources involved.  Until provided something credible from another source I have no reason not to believe those involved in the negotiations.

But like I said, if Bob McKenzie was saying it?  I'd give it more weight.

2
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Matthews or BUST
« on: July 22, 2016, 09:47:58 AM »
Quote
“I don’t know why people were panicking,” said Brisson, who explained that discussions about the contract hadn’t even started until last week. “We were in agreement right away.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/maple-leafs-sign-no-1-pick-auston-matthews-to-entry-level-deal/article31050579/

3
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Matthews or BUST
« on: July 22, 2016, 09:35:13 AM »
The point is, there was nothing unusual about the Matthews contract being signed 3 weeks after the draft, in fact it's pretty much in line with other first overall picks of the past decade.  The Toronto media wanted to make an issue out of nothing.

Right and I'm saying that not all of those situations are necessarily equal. Not all teams run rookie camps, some teams are super busy in free agency/the trade market and will back burner signing draft picks(especially in a case like Johnson's where he planned on playing College). Especially in 2005, the situations were just fundamentally different. It made all the sense in the world to prioritize figuring out a fairly complicated salary structure over signing a draft pick when there was no dispute about what the pick would eventually get.

What was reported on specifically was that there were negotiations that were slow, that's not the same thing as there not being negotiations because guys are at the cottage and signing a contract makes no tangible difference.

Again, if you want to believe that was entirely fabricated that's your call but I don't.

Well the evidence sure points to it being mostly if not completely fabricated.  The parties involved say it was quick and no issues.  The article in question has no comments or sources from anyone claiming to be involved in the contract discussions.  The team has been pretty tight-lipped about leaking things in the past couple of seasons with even huge trades not leaking out until just before happening or even by the Leafs own twitter accounts.  Kevin McGran ain't Bob McKenzie.

4
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Matthews or BUST
« on: July 21, 2016, 01:41:06 PM »
"Sources" say it is max.

Quote
@reporterchris

Auston Matthews signs entry-level deal with #leafs. Includes max bonuses and salary, per sources.

And CapFriendly/General Fanager have tweeted that they have confirmed that it is a max ELC.

Quote
@CapFriendly 

#CapFriendly CONFIRMED:
Auston Matthews #Leafs
ELC max in all 3 yrs
$925,000 cap hit
+ Sched 'A' bonus $850,000
+ Sched 'B' bonus $2,000,000

5
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Matthews or BUST
« on: July 21, 2016, 01:29:12 PM »
They've signed him.

Quote
@MapleLeafs 
The Maple Leafs have signed Auston Matthews to an entry-level contract. #TMLtalk

http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=889946

6
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: The Donald
« on: July 21, 2016, 10:38:53 AM »
I really wonder if there is any controversy that can cling to him.  Things that would kill any other candidate in any other year are just ignored.

The guy said he wouldn't necessarily defend NATO countries.  He's just insane.

I have a cousin in Ohio who's started posting pro-Trump messages recently on FB and he genuinely believes that most of what Trump says is just for show but still thinks that he's the best thing for America. This is a direct quote: "he is using similar tactics as Hitler, but he is doing it for good not evil".

So, no, for people who already believe in this guy I don't think there's literally anything that would change that in the foreseeable future.

Some of the scenes of the crowd at the RNC are legitimately scary.

7
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: The Donald
« on: July 21, 2016, 10:34:23 AM »
I really wonder if there is any controversy that can cling to him.  Things that would kill any other candidate in any other year are just ignored.

The guy said he wouldn't necessarily defend NATO countries.  He's just insane.

8
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Matthews or BUST
« on: July 21, 2016, 09:35:25 AM »
He said he didn't believe in any bonuses, not just schedule B bonuses. Do you think he changed that stance on just A bonuses? That makes no sense, given the reasons he stated for not believing in them.

Well his reasons for not believing in them (and reasons for his other odd tendencies) don't make much sense to me, so I'm not going to get into his logic there much. But yes, it wouldn't really surprise me if he decided to only soften his stance on the issue instead of dropping it entirely.

I mean, I really, REALLY can't see if this was holding up him signing or not signing that Shanahan wouldn't step in and make sure it got done.  They are not going to go through the last year, year and a half to get to this point and let this hold things up.  Lou answers to Shanahan in the end.

9
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Matthews or BUST
« on: July 21, 2016, 09:12:23 AM »
Only the Leafs team I've been a fan of my entire life could screw this one up https://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/2016/07/20/leafs-lamoriello-balks-at-bonus-demands-of-auston-matthews.html

I don't see why you would get upset about an article with no credible sources and where the author only says "it is believed" this is what is happening.  That could mean anything.  It is believed by who?  The author?  Anyone with any connection to the people involved?  It could mean the author is trying to fill in a dead time of year of NHL news.

10
There was actually something posted on twitter (I can't recall which account offhand right now) that was a screenshot of Matt Pfeffer replying to someone's comment on an article and basically saying that what he said to Ken Campbell was that Weber was average in that one specific stat (the 5v5 GF% or whatever it was).  Basically he wasn't trying to say Weber was just an average NHLer overall.

And while he's not wrong in that regard, it also highlights why MTL felt comfortable not extending Pfeffer too. He didn't have help/do a good job selling management on his analyses.

I took it to mean that Ken Campbell didn't understand or misrepresented what he was trying to say, which isn't surprising to me.

11
http://m.thn.com/blog/analytics-hasnt-reached-maturity-in-the-nhl-yet-matt-pfeffer/

Is someone reading our thread?

Quote
“There’s nothing wrong with being average in the NHL,” Pfeffer said. “An average NHLer is worth a heck of a lot and that’s what Shea Weber is.”

Bold.

He tweeted a retraction shortly after the article was published. Looks like his account has been deleted though.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/shea-weber-average-nhler-p-k-subban-trade-matt-pfeffer-montreal-canadiens-nashville-predators-analytics/

There was actually something posted on twitter (I can't recall which account offhand right now) that was a screenshot of Matt Pfeffer replying to someone's comment on an article and basically saying that what he said to Ken Campbell was that Weber was average in that one specific stat (the 5v5 GF% or whatever it was).  Basically he wasn't trying to say Weber was just an average NHLer overall.

12
Former Leafs: Ex-Files / Re: PHIL KESSEL WINS STANLEY CUP
« on: July 19, 2016, 09:22:40 AM »
I've always thought he comes off as just a genuinely nice guy (who tries hard, loves the game) and his teammates always seem to back that up so not entirely surprised he did that.  Just seems like a good dude.

13
Marlies & Prospect Talk / Re: Maple Leafs 2016 Draft Recap
« on: July 15, 2016, 01:26:54 PM »
There's been a lot of good, smart moves made since Lou became GM.  The vast majority I'd say.

14
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: The Official Complaint Thread!
« on: July 15, 2016, 11:48:35 AM »
Support the industry that creates jobs, you talked about a rebate to buyers.  These can be very different.  And the car industry is important to almost everyone.  The Green industry benefits very few.
If rich folk and green folk want to waste their time with electric vehicles then it only seems appropriate that they should also waste their own money to pay for it.
Why the need for a Rebate?  If people want to own an electric vehicle why can't they pay the full cost of that Vehicle?
Right now, electric vehicles are an expensive luxury that won't be mainstream for years, perhaps even never if fuel cell technology has some more breakthroughs in the coming decade. Spending money on a charging infrastructure that will likely be obsolete soon is not where I'd be spending money, especially given the state of the books of the province.

They won't always be an expensive luxury - in fact, a number of models from the major car manufacturers could very well be affordable with a rebate within the next 5 years. The infrastructure to support these vehicles needs to in place before there's an increase in the amount on the road, not after. They may never become the dominant type of vehicle on the road, but, it doesn't feel like we're that far away from them being in the price range where they could represent 15-20%+ of new cars hitting the road.

And, these charging stations won't be obsolete, either. New electric car batteries will still almost certainly rely on the same types of plugs and they'll still require electricity. If the need arises, I'm pretty sure these charging stations can be upgraded and enhanced at less cost than installing new stations. Until the technology hits a serious generational upgrade (which is likely further down the timeline than significant enhancements in their efficiency/load bearing is), these stations will be useful.

Because they are like any other incentive, the idea is to encourage people to do something because they will receive this perceived benefit for doing so.

Why should green initiatives not receive government assistance or subsidies the way fossil-fuel-related industries have for decades?

There's that Boomer attitude!

15
Non-Hockey Chatter / Re: The Official Complaint Thread!
« on: July 15, 2016, 11:43:06 AM »
If rich folk and green folk want to waste their time with electric vehicles then it only seems appropriate that they should also waste their own money to pay for it.
Why the need for a Rebate?  If people want to own an electric vehicle why can't they pay the full cost of that Vehicle?
Right now, electric vehicles are an expensive luxury that won't be mainstream for years, perhaps even never if fuel cell technology has some more breakthroughs in the coming decade. Spending money on a charging infrastructure that will likely be obsolete soon is not where I'd be spending money, especially given the state of the books of the province.

They won't always be an expensive luxury - in fact, a number of models from the major car manufacturers could very well be affordable with a rebate within the next 5 years. The infrastructure to support these vehicles needs to in place before there's an increase in the amount on the road, not after. They may never become the dominant type of vehicle on the road, but, it doesn't feel like we're that far away from them being in the price range where they could represent 15-20%+ of new cars hitting the road.

And, these charging stations won't be obsolete, either. New electric car batteries will still almost certainly rely on the same types of plugs and they'll still require electricity. If the need arises, I'm pretty sure these charging stations can be upgraded and enhanced at less cost than installing new stations. Until the technology hits a serious generational upgrade (which is likely further down the timeline than significant enhancements in their efficiency/load bearing is), these stations will be useful.

Because they are like any other incentive, the idea is to encourage people to do something because they will receive this perceived benefit for doing so.

Why should green initiatives not receive government assistance or subsidies the way fossil-fuel-related industries have for decades?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 958