Eastside's Hockey Elite Collide

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Do you want a booster or no?

Hehehe. Sorry boss.

Seriously though, I don't know if I'm going to draft any boosters this year because of the bonus structure, unless one falls way below where I expected him to be drafted.

Gutsy, risky pick by Vancouver. Well, you don't win big by playing it safe, right?

Okay, looks like I'm up. Gimme five minutes.

I thought about him at 18, but he's too big of a risk IMO.

Parker wrote:Gutsy, risky pick by Vancouver. Well, you don't win big by playing it safe, right?

Okay, looks like I'm up. Gimme five minutes.

Is your pick available ?

Fucking worksheet still isn't doing hitting ceilings right. HULK SMASH!!!

NashvilleGM wrote:Is your pick available ?

What are you offering for it? I'm not interested in trading down picks, or in a package of players.

Sorry for the delay in announcing Phoenix's pick. I know who I'd take but all of a sudden everyone is asking me about the pick.

Odds Parker keeps the pick: 1/1
Odds Parker trades the pick: 5/1

Just make the pick, bro. You're not fooling anybody.

This post was made in frustration and was a little over the top. I was venting a little much and I apologize for that.

Parker wrote:I'm not directing this at anyone specific, but it might not be a great idea to make really one-sided trade offers to the guy whose team just won the fucking Stanley Cup. They're insulting and all they accomplish is to guarantee that the Cup winner's organization never bothers wasting time trying to make a deal with you again.

So my Doan + 30 for Sam Brittain isn't good enough?

Parker wrote:I'm not directing this at anyone specific, but it might not be a great idea to make really one-sided trade offers to the guy whose team just won the fucking Stanley Cup. They're insulting and all they accomplish is to guarantee that the Cup winner's organization never bothers wasting time trying to make a deal with you again.

Pff, have you never been in an EHM league before? Don't flatter yourself, Adam would of run over you in the WCF if it hadn't been for the fact he's such an outstanding gentleman.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:

Parker wrote:I'm not directing this at anyone specific, but it might not be a great idea to make really one-sided trade offers to the guy whose team just won the fucking Stanley Cup. They're insulting and all they accomplish is to guarantee that the Cup winner's organization never bothers wasting time trying to make a deal with you again.

So my Doan + 30 for Sam Brittain isn't good enough?

Brittain is pretty awesome, but who would take over as captain of the Coyotes? Georges Laraque?

Parker wrote:

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:

Parker wrote:I'm not directing this at anyone specific, but it might not be a great idea to make really one-sided trade offers to the guy whose team just won the fucking Stanley Cup. They're insulting and all they accomplish is to guarantee that the Cup winner's organization never bothers wasting time trying to make a deal with you again.

So my Doan + 30 for Sam Brittain isn't good enough?

Brittain is pretty awesome, but who would take over as captain of the Coyotes? Georges Laraque?

I'll throw in Ruslan Salei.

Tampa Bay GM wrote:Pff, have you never been in an EHM league before? Don't flatter yourself, Adam would of run over you in the WCF if it hadn't been for the fact he's such an outstanding gentleman.

I wasn't trying to flatter myself, I'm just saying that if my team just won the Cup it should be clear that I'm not a moron, and offering me a trade only a moron would accept is a little insulting. As for getting run over by anyone in any league, this is the second league I've been in where I took a non-contender to a Cup winner (without selling out the team's future) within two seasons, so I'd like to think I could hold my own in any league.

Jensen isn't a risk. He'll be a decent grinder even if he doesn't boost and over a 3 year period boosting probabilities are, well.. high, let's just say.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:I'll throw in Ruslan Salei.

Naw. Too bad you already traded Commodore, because Commodore + Brittain for Doan + 30th pick totally could've happened. Commodore is natural leader!

Parker wrote:

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:I'll throw in Ruslan Salei.

Naw. Too bad you already traded Commodore, because Commodore + Brittain for Doan + 30th pick totally could've happened. Commodore is natural leader!

For the Springfield Falcons, yes.

SharksGM wrote:Jensen isn't a risk. He'll be a decent grinder even if he doesn't boost and over a 3 year period boosting probabilities are, well.. high, let's just say.

True, but he's at the very lowest point of boosting probability. There's a decent chance it'll happen, but if it doesn't, he wouldn't have any more value than a guy drafted at least a full round later.

Looking at the picks after mine, really your looking at a weak 2nd line forward and a 4th/5th defencmen, where as jensen very well could be a very nice 1st/2nd line winger with some grind. now lets hope he boosts!!

He's 1 CON over the minimum, it's not a high chance he'll boost, there's a very low chance. The earliest he can boost is next off-season since rarely do prospects sign right away in time for the deadline this year.

I computerized a couple sims, and human controlled one and Jensen never boosted, but it wasn't the real sim so doesn't really matter too much.

I wouldn't consider Mayfield a 4th/5th d-men. There's quite a few teams without D-men over 80 DEF and he's also got high CON.

Also Namestinkov at 80 OF wouldn't really be considered weak either. Solid pick at 30 I wouldn't have been surprised to see him go a lot higher.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Odds Parker keeps the pick: 1/1
Odds Parker trades the pick: 5/1

Just make the pick, bro. You're not fooling anybody.

Hey, I ALMOST traded it. I just got impatient. Plus Slava Namestnikov has way too cool of a name to pass up.

Vancouver Canucks wrote:Looking at the picks after mine, really your looking at a weak 2nd line forward and a 4th/5th defencmen, where as jensen very well could be a very nice 1st/2nd line winger with some grind. now lets hope he boosts!!

Point taken on Jensen's low-end value, but I wouldn't call Namestnikov a weak second-line forward. Other than being a little inconsistent, he's basically a natural centre version of Mikkel Boedker, with a little less shooting and a little more stickhandling. I'd call him at least an average second liner.

Like I said though, it's a gutsy pick, and I meant that in an complimentary way. Sometimes you have to make moves like that to get an edge in a league with so many skilled GM's.

Skilled GM's? Where?

The chance of a 76 con player boosting isn't as low as you think. They've all got 3 years to do it at a young age, so even if it's just 50% every year that's nearly 90% in the end.

i don't know if it stacks... i do know that brickley boosted 7/10 times i simmed ahead this year after doing nothing last year... and he's only a 78 con.

Jungle Cats wrote:i don't know if it stacks... i do know that brickley boosted 7/10 times i simmed ahead this year after doing nothing last year... and he's only a 78 con.

It definitely doesn't stack; you only have the same X percentage chance of a boost each year, but I understand what Dan is saying. The player only has to boost once but has several chances to do it. If you're looking to flip a coin and have it land on tails, every time you flip that coin there is the same 50% probabilty that it'll land on tails, but if it only has to happen once, the more flips you get the better chance you have of eventually landing once on tails. As the number of flips approaches infinite, so does the chance that you'll get at least one landing on tails.

If he had indefinite chances, then yeah, but he's only got 2-3.

Hey, is that a new splash page? Looking good, EHEC.

Real flossy.

Looks like summer.

Also, where's MIN?

Bub(NYR) wrote:Also, where's MIN?

See trade thread.

I sent him the offer mid-afternoon and he got back to me early this morning. Sorry for holding things up. Femur should be around, but if not, I've got his two picks. Hopefully NYI is around and then I'll pick for CGY and OTT, MTL is always nearby, then I have a list for NJ, then OTT again and hopefully we'll be into the middle or later of the 2nd round by tonight.

Parker wrote:Hey, is that a new splash page? Looking good, EHEC.

Yes sir. More on that later.

yes, i am back and in my office most of the morning. the committee has my picks, though, so they can feel free to post them if i am doing something strange ...like actually working

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:

Parker wrote:Hey, is that a new splash page? Looking good, EHEC.

Yes sir. More on that later.

i fear change...

Femur wrote:i fear change...

Explains why you didn't vote for Obama.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:See trade thread.

I sent him the offer mid-afternoon and he got back to me early this morning. Sorry for holding things up. Femur should be around, but if not, I've got his two picks. Hopefully NYI is around and then I'll pick for CGY and OTT, MTL is always nearby, then I have a list for NJ, then OTT again and hopefully we'll be into the middle or later of the 2nd round by tonight.

Hey it's not like I'm picking anytime soon anway, but I was just curious.

Love the new logo. And I'm cool with change.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Explains why you didn't vote for Obama.

What changes has Obama brought? There's still no health care, and you're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economy is even further in the toilet. Does that count as change?

Parker wrote:

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Explains why you didn't vote for Obama.

What changes has Obama brought? There's still no health care, and you're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economy is even further in the toilet. Does that count as change?

I also didn't vote for Obama. Can't stand the guy. Hate him with every fiber of my being. Completely unqualified to be President.

God would it suck to be a US voter. You're fucked no matter what...

Parker wrote:God would it suck to be a US voter. You're fucked no matter what...

There are some very exciting younger Republicans on the fast track like Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, and Marco Rubio, a senator from Florida. Rubio might give it a go in 2012, considering he'll have about the same experience record that Barry had when he ran.

Rubio has it all. Wife (former Dolphins cheerleader) and 4 kids, the "American Dream" background as a son of Cuban exiles. Bilingual in Spanish and English. Cum laude from University of Miami with his JD.

He's the party's best hope going forward.

Yeah but the old-school rich white man GOP still makes all the policy, and their policy is to do whatever is in the interest of the big corporations, because that's where their campaign contributions come from. I think it's going to take a complete collapse of the economy before any real changes happen. Clearly the dot-com crash and the mortgage crisis haven't been enough of an impetus.

Parker wrote:...I think it's going to take a complete collapse of the economy before any real changes happen...

think we are there; nobody has ever been so broke in the history of the world as we are today. i think i read somewhere that even if you took every nickle in the entire world and threw it at the US deficit right now that it wouldn't end it. we are through the looking glass...there is no possibility of our society continuing on present course.

i am, however, much more optimistic than y'all...this stuff (by stuff i mean this hybrid Marxism/Maoism/Stalinism/Fascism/nanny state/etc./etc/etc that we are currently being ruled by) is not our bag...old Europe stuff, not USA. another trouncing coming to the left in 2012 (including Barry and the Senate), and my guess is the elections go the other way for at least a decade after that.

Parker wrote:Yeah but the old-school rich white man GOP still makes all the policy, and their policy is to do whatever is in the interest of the big corporations, because that's where their campaign contributions come from. I think it's going to take a complete collapse of the economy before any real changes happen. Clearly the dot-com crash and the mortgage crisis haven't been enough of an impetus.

Who's supposed to write the policy? The public? The public who has no idea about what is going on except for what the news tells them. In a country where women who vote for whichever candidate is the most attractive and where all people vote solely on the "candidate they'd want to have a beer with"? No way can you trust the public to do anything.

Would you want a politician's personal agenda?

Corporations are the only option to write the agenda. They're the ones who stimulate the most important part of the country - the economy. They create jobs. They expand. They buy products from other companies to produce products. Their level of demand is what can allow small businesses to start up and compete. Corporations have to write policy, whether it's because they donate or not. Without big businesses succeeding, the economy takes a gigantic shit.

Femur wrote:think we are there; nobody has ever been so broke in the history of the world as we are today. i think i read somewhere that even if you took every nickle in the entire world and threw it at the US deficit right now that it wouldn't end it. we are through the looking glass...there is no possibility of our society continuing on present course.

When you say the deficit, you don't mean the national debt, right? Cause the national debt's a crock of shit. We have no intention of ever paying it back, will continue to print money we don't have, and it's nothing more than a tool for prospective candidates to point to as evidence of why they're better than the other guy.

I want to stay out of this. Ah, well. Here now, interested in that particular point of view, which I've never seen it put so forthright -

The public is irrevocably stupid and this is an acceptable status quo because all policy is essentially based in the interests of private entities, who know what they're doing.

Is that about right? I don't want to twist the meaning.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:[...the national debt's a crock of shit. We have no intention of ever paying it back...

that is no longer true; up until recently (i believe Clinton, but could be wrong), we were simply owing ourselves money. but all of that changed when interest rates hit bottom and we made the choice it was cheaper (in the short run) to borrow some of the money. and under Barry, as you said, we are beginning to monetize some of the debt.

HOWEVER, there is no such thing as a free lunch; no matter how you deal with spending more than you take in, you are paying for it in some way. the price on our economy is now crushing. when you remove otherwise productive capital from our economy to pay for interest, or re-fill public pensions you previously robbed, etc. etc. etc, you are damaging everyone in the society. one example of this (and believe me, it is complex and i can think of scores off the top of my head) is that even a very large bank (like Citi) still has a finite amount of money to loan out. since the US government is a much better credit risk than a minority farmer looking for a new tractor, Citi naturally puts the USG to the front of the line, and doesn't give the farmer a loan. boom. you call it lip service and politics, but that guy can't make a profit because his tractor is worn out. maybe he goes on assistance. maybe he quits farming (which he is good at) and takes a government job that costs us all more money and he is unproductive.

i could literally go on forever (and not just seem like it), but believe me, this debt and deficit is costing us all....far more than health care, or social security, or wars, or anything else. it IS the issue.

Jungle Cats wrote:I want to stay out of this. Ah, well. Here now, interested in that particular point of view, which I've never seen it put so forthright -

The public is irrevocably stupid and this is an acceptable status quo because all policy is essentially based in the interests of private entities, who know what they're doing.

Is that about right? I don't want to twist the meaning.

i sort-of agree, but i think people are waking up. and of course, i wouldn't say stupid...i would say they are expert in what they need to be expert in and up until recently, the interplay between government, them, and big business hasn't been as pressing as it is now. i admit i get frustrated how easily many seem to buy a line of b.s., but i think my brothers and sisters are going to start making the correction. obviously, i could be wrong and we could be heading towards real-life Escape From New York.

I don't believe people have to be stupid, would be my all important caveat.

I wanted to respond to the 'women vote for the attractive candidate' and 'men vote for a drinking buddy' thing, which seems like an ugly generalization, but the recent federal election leaves me with little evidence against that (other than, you know, this being Canada, there aren't really any attractive politicians...), though there were some pleasant developments among those who actually engage with the process and grasp the 'personal is political' banner...

Jungle Cats wrote:I want to stay out of this. Ah, well. Here now, interested in that particular point of view, which I've never seen it put so forthright -

The public is irrevocably stupid and this is an acceptable status quo because all policy is essentially based in the interests of private entities, who know what they're doing.

Is that about right? I don't want to twist the meaning.

I didn't know I was supposed to sit here and write a political science dissertation. Simplify it however you want. I trust big business long before I trust the people.

The public is irrevocably stupid. If we took 100 random people out of the 310+ million in the US, how many of them would you trust to create policy? To change a light bulb without electrocuting themselves? Expand that to 1000. Then 10,000. Then 100,000. Then even 1,000,000. Could you find a minute group to handle the country properly? Maybe.

Private entities must know what they're doing to some extent, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be near as big as they are. Nor would they be as influential as they are. The common person has a vendetta against any high-ranking official, whether it be a politician, a CEO of a company, a police captain, anything. It might be jealousy, it might be something else, but they got there because they, in most cases, deserved to be. You can make the corruption argument if you want, and I'm sure you would, but I'd venture to say that at least 80-85% of company CEOs, COOs, etc. made it there on their own accord or were benefactors of a family fortune/prestige. If the apple falls far from the tree, that's an altogether different thing.

What percentage of people have success as a happy accident? Very few I would guess.

I see nothing wrong with this. Those who think differently than me do. I try to avoid all political discussions because you can never change anybody's mind and it's just a dick-measuring contest, but with not much else to talk about, I figured I'd elaborate on the Obama thing.


It's by no means acceptable that the public as a whole is uneducated (in a political sense). Part of it is emotional attachment to a given issue blinding them from the whole picture. Part of it is apathy. A large part of it is indoctrination.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:Without big businesses succeeding, the economy takes a gigantic shit.

Clearly. You've made my point. If the corporations succeed, that's fine. When they get government bailouts to pay bonuses to executives whose legacy is massive failure, I'd like to think there is a problem. Capitalism is supposed to reward the successful, not to steal from taxpayer to reward the failures.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:When you say the deficit, you don't mean the national debt, right? Cause the national debt's a crock of shit. We have no intention of ever paying it back, will continue to print money we don't have, and it's nothing more than a tool for prospective candidates to point to as evidence of why they're better than the other guy.

And you don't see any problem with this?

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:

Femur wrote:think we are there; nobody has ever been so broke in the history of the world as we are today. i think i read somewhere that even if you took every nickle in the entire world and threw it at the US deficit right now that it wouldn't end it. we are through the looking glass...there is no possibility of our society continuing on present course.

When you say the deficit, you don't mean the national debt, right? Cause the national debt's a crock of shit. We have no intention of ever paying it back, will continue to print money we don't have, and it's nothing more than a tool for prospective candidates to point to as evidence of why they're better than the other guy.

How is the national debt a crock of shit? Responsible spending is necessary at any level - public, corporate, personal - just look at some of the Eurozone economies (i.e. Ireland, Greece), who have faced big problems because of their debt.