buddha

everyone bags on late stage kenny holland, and its well deserved, but how about yzerman's drafts?  outside of round one, what have they got?  

nothing.  not one pick has made any difference and most have never seen an nhl arena without a ticket.

plenty of 2nd and 3rd round picks from 2019 and 2020 have made the nhl, here, only albert johannson as a bottom pair defenseman.

they had SIX second round picks in 2019 and 2020 and only johannson has made the nhl, 7 years later.

you can talk about kenny all you want, but those two draft classes should have AT LEAST provided more depth pieces than that.

33 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Mighty Gabe Perreault with the natural hat trick. He was drafted #23 in the 2023 draft in which Danielson was drafted #9. 

the same nate danielson with a whopping 3 goals in 18 games in grand rapids?

so where is superstar lucas raymond?

basketball players make so much money so early, there's less incentive.  football players get cut immediately.  baseball players make league minimum for 3 years, then have their salaries controlled by arbitration which is judged mostly by their performance for another 3 years.  hockey players make less money and are locked into their contracts for at least 3 years as a rookie.

9 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

If a shorter season genuinely improves the quality of play, owners can probably recoup that lost revenue through higher ticket prices. Losing five home dates a year is not that dramatic, and a ten dollar average increase per ticket would likely cover the gap without much pushback from fans.

Local broadcasters like FanDuel would take a small hit with fewer games to air, but national broadcasters would barely notice the difference. Unlike the NFL, where cutting games also cuts weeks of programming, the NBA can fit a shortened season into the exact same calendar window, so national TV schedules stay intact. And if the on court product actually improves, better games drive higher ratings, and higher ratings let the league charge more for advertising, so that revenue stream could end up neutral or even increase.

The real question, though, is whether 72 games actually produces a meaningfully better product than 82, and that part is worth being skeptical about. 

theyre not taking a hit now because of the product, why would they give up the revenue?  people go see teams when theyre winning, not because they love to see well played basketball.

and your last part is the real truth.  players arent going to suddenly be available more if they schedule less games, they'll take more time off.

the salaries are so high that they dont need to play.  theyre guaranteed.  plus these guys are their own brand names now, they lose out if they get injured, what's the best way not to get injured?  dont play.

the teams have invested so much money in them they the teams dont want them injured either.  the teams want them ready for the playoffs, when they make more coin.  as long as they can make the playoffs, they dont care.  the regular season games dont matter.

i dont know how you change that.  its not like that in baseball for the most part.  its not like that in hockey.  they both play huge regular seasons.  nfl isnt comparable.

why is the nba different?  why do nba players beg out of games so regularly why hockey and baseball players dont?  why do nba teams allow it - and likely encourage it - and other leagues dont?

10 hours ago, Deleterious said:

 

do steve kerr and the players want to take a pay cut to make up for that missed revenue?

why would anyone pay to watch this slop?

The knicks - without kat - beat the bulls by 40.

the great josh giddey had more turnovers than made baskets.

3 hours ago, Deleterious said:

This is by far the biggest issue the league is facing.

 

well cade is actually hurt, unlike a lot of stars on other teams who just sit out certain games.

10 minutes ago, oblong said:

Isn’t there a fundamental issue that EO’s are not laws?  Regardless of the scope of their intent the law is the law and the constitution is the constitution. If the court were to agree that this anchor baby stuff going forward should be negated isn’t the place that’s done via an amendment or law and not an order?  I’m assuming there is something I am missing I guess 

that's the initial question the court will address.  if they stop the analysis there and rule that the government cannot amend the law in thia fashion, they are likely to get an 8-1 or 9-0 decision.

an amazing athlete.

Lord, grant me the confidence of Caris Lavert.

27 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I don't disagree that Miller (via Trump) will continue to push further.  But what is in front of the court right now is not at the level you folks were mentioning, perhaps joking about before.  As for the administration refusing to answer a question about going further back, just shows he's not a completely incompetent lawyer as no lawyer should feed into "perhaps" statements.  I also would put more money on 9-0 than I would that SCOTUS holds up the EO.

lawyers answer "perhaps" questions all the time at oral argument.  especially at the supreme court.  i understand what youre saying, but this particular administration cannot - and should not - be trusted on this issue.  or any issue, really.

in fact, if the SG had argued ONLY that the EO should be applied as a way to end "birth tourism" then they might have had a better chance. but they didnt.  they went for the full "ark should be overturned" type analysis.

4 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Because if the Wings don’t make it this year I see no reason to think they’ll make it next year.  Doesn’t seem there is much being “built”. 

come on now, were building a team that contends for the final playoff spot every year!  who wouldnt want that kind of mediocrity?

54 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

With all that being said, the Wings could still be back in a playoff position  by the end of tonight if Detroit beats Philly, Columbus loses in regulation to Carolina, and Ottawa doesn’t beat Buffalo. 

why do you do this to yourself?

The sign outside LCA should read "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."

6 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Just an fyi, and note I don't side with Trump in regards to birthright citizenship, but this wouldn't affect Trumps kids, Rubio, anyones grandpa, etc.

• It would not be retroactive, only from the time the EO was signed.
• Going forward, U.S. Born children, born to parents that are not citizens or have legal status, would not be citizens.

I don't know the status of some of your Grandparents, but this likely would not have effected your parents.  This would not effect Marco (both parents were legal residents), it would not affect any of the Trump kids (father was US Citizen and even if he wasn't, mother was legal resident).  

To me, it's an unconstitutional solution to a legitimate problem, at least a legitimate problem when you refuse (which both sides have) to address over decades.  It almost feels like an extra safeguard to limit one of the benefits of coming here illegally should another president step in and again refuse to address the southern border.  

 

Maybe.

The government is seeking only prospective relief, meaning that the EO is looking to end birthright citizenship for a particular class of persons moving forward.  as you state.

However, when the SG was asked at oral argument whether the administration would seek to apply its order retroactively, the SG refused to say that it would not.  In other words, the government did not commit that it would not look to rescind the citizenship of US citizens who were naturalized under old laws.

As Justice Sotomayor noted, the US has done this before when it rescinded citizenship for american indians.  Given the cruel nature of this administration in regards to non-white immigrants, and the bipolar nature of donald trump, i dont think you can say with any certainty he would not look to deport as many brown people as his government agents could get their hands on.  

And if you disagree, why dont you ask stephen miller what he thinks.

1 hour ago, Deleterious said:

Is that just 2 1/2 hours of Webber blaming other people for things he did?  

where's michael talley when you need him?

i'll be interested to see how teams guard wemby in the playoffs.  i suspect they'll just try to beat the **** out him.

i was there in january, once the leaves get on the trees and the flowers bloom, i suspect IU will be great.

2 hours ago, Deleterious said:

It will cost more than one first. Probably two with heavy protection. 

OKC doesn't care one bit about Detroit.  With Boston and Indiana healthy next year Detroit might not even be the favorite in the East. Cleveland might add LeBron. Charlotte and Atlanta could tweak their rosters. 

We'll have to see how the summer shakes out. But the East should be a lot better next year 

detroit is in first place this year by a mile and theyre probably the 3rd or 4th favorite to come out of the east.  next year they will likely be lower unless they make a big move this summer.

boston and cleveland are the two favorites for sure.  detroit is probably behind thw knicms because people overrate the knicks.  same thing for philly.

38 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

I think LeVert has been so bad that Detroit would have to attach assets to move him.  

Duncan Robinson is the best candidate to get dumped this summer.  Makes $15.9 million next year but only $2 million is guaranteed.  Especially if they can replace his shooting in the draft or free agency.  

i'd be willing to be that new orleans would give up a lot for stew.  like...maybe another unprotected first?  

2 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

For what?  Jonas Jerebko's E-Sport team?

nyah.  yaxel can play.  big who can guard 2-3-4.  can shoot, pass, and is a willing teammate.  can take over a game when they need it.  he's been the best player in the tournament.  only downside is his age but the pistons are built to win in cade's prime, which is coming up.

morez johnson is another one they could take.  defensive forward like stewart.

hope its yaxel.

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

One can only imagine the upheaval.  My father is 97 and is a citizen by birth to an immigrant mother and father.   Several Trump children also fall into that category. 

depends what kind of opinion they write too.  if they make it broad, they might lose thomas, alito, kavanaugh, and maybe gorsuch.  if its just about the EO, maybe they only lose thomas and possibly alito, maybe kavanaugh?

the questioning was pretty favorable to the aclu, even from alito.

My liberal Michigan grad mother would have a heart attack if my daughter went to Bama.