kipwinger

Member
  • Content Count

    10,300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    145

kipwinger last won the day on May 13

kipwinger had the most liked content!

7 Followers

About kipwinger

  • Rank
    Legend

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington, District of Columbia

Recent Profile Visitors

16,921 profile views
  1. Your take, as usual, is absurd. He was clearly insinuating something. The word "insinuate" exists because it's a real thing. A way of saying something without saying it. For example... Person: Don't you think Neo goes to idiotic lengths to defend right-wing dips***s who don't need defending? Me: My mother always said "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". See, I didn't ACTUALLY say you act like a dummy sometimes in your defense of the indefensible but I sure did INSINUATE it. Not altogether different than how Datsyuk insinuated he was against homosexuality with his statement about the church. It's odd how people get SUPER literal suddenly whenever political or social obfuscation aligns with their personal views.
  2. kipwinger

    2020 Offseason

    Like I said, I haven't seen enough of Kotkaniemi to weigh in on the debate. But there are a few things I would say about your post. First, there isn't a single team in the NHL whose centers don't have more defensive responsibilities than their wingers do. Hence why guys who played center their whole careers but can't hack it in the NHL (Abby, Helm, Franzen) get moved to the wing and not vice versa. So while Zadina may have improved, he's still asked to do MUCH less than a center. Especially a top six center. Secondly, this year IS Zadina's first year. He played 9 games last season and looked totally lost. Then he looked totally lost in training camp and as a result didn't make the team. He then got called up because of his offense (to replace Mantha) and showed improvement as the season progressed. But he still only played 28 games. Your post makes it seem like there was some marked difference in his play from one year to the next. That's basically an exaggeration considering he still hasn't even played a half season's worth of NHL hockey. Again, it's pretty clear Zadina is the better scorer. That should come as no surprise considering we all knew that on draft day. But a better player is still very much in debate I'd think.
  3. kipwinger

    2020 Offseason

    Ugh, this debate is dull and has been done in various iterations before. Nobody is saying Kotkaniemi is a better scorer. The numbers don't back that up. Mackel is saying he's a better player. We're all fully aware that a player who scores fewer points can still be a better/more valuable player. Otherwise we'd all have to conclude Datsyuk was not better than Crosby or Malkin in 2008. Otherwise Steve Yzerman was a better player in 1987 than he was in 1997. Zadina has been criticized by quite a lot of folks, including our own coaching staff, for his play away from the puck. It's not like Mackel is making this up. I don't know enough about Jesperi Kotkaniemi to weigh in on the debate, but I do know that conflating "scoring" with "better" is a pretty slippery slope. You start playing that game and you have to conclude absurd s*** like that Brad Marchand is a "better" player than Alexander Barkov, or that Patrice Bergeron has never been a top 5 center in the NHL. Doesn't work that way.
  4. kipwinger

    2020 Offseason

    Ummm....yeah, they do impact the game more. You being snarky about it doesn't make it untrue. Also, it's not just faceoffs. Literally every coach's system from the minor leagues to the professional level requires more defensive responsibility out of centers than wingers. So Kotkaniemi and Rossi score as much (or more) than Zadina and Lafreniere despite having to do so much more every single game. It's actually a pretty straightforward argument, though I wouldn't expect a Canadian to understand it. While you dingbats are getting moist over the one-dimensional guys who score pretty goals everyone else is content winning Stanley Cups. It'll be 20 years before you realize that Draisaitl is better than McDavid too. That's why you losers can't win anything important.
  5. kipwinger

    2020 Offseason

    See what I mean, he's a big stat guy until he isn't. Funny how that works.
  6. kipwinger

    2020 Offseason

    Exactly. Let's take this Zadina v. Kotkaniemi debate going on right now as an example. @krsmith17 is claiming that Zadina "caught up an surpassed" Kotkaniemi this year because he prefers Zadina and the Z had better stats this season. But a few months ago when I said the same thing about Rossi catching up and surprassing Lafreniere our buddy KRsmith said that Lafreniere has the "track record" and that this season is only an aberration.
  7. kipwinger

    2020 Offseason

    It usually goes the other way. The "headcase" goalie is totally a thing. "Yeah Luongo/Lundqvist are good regular season goalies, but they fall apart when the game's on the line. Total headcases". Or "Osgood is solid, but he let's in the occasional floater when his head's not in it'. But I learned from the Detroit Lions that if someone is in close proximity to greatness they basically are great. Matt Patricia and Bob Quinn MUST be winners. I mean...Bill Belichick...amirite? I guess what's I'm saying is Matt Murray is the kind of guy who will turn this franchise around. You don't spend that much time around Crosby, Malkin, Letang, and Fleury without learning something about winning (presumably by osmosis). Throw the bank at this guy.
  8. kipwinger

    2020 Offseason

    Yeah but what about his intangibles? If being a hockey fan has taught me anything it's that (when convenient) stats don't mean "everything" and the ol' eyeball test is your best guide. Murray has his name on two Stanley Cups and learned under the tutelage of future hall of famer Marc Andre Fleury. Can your stupid spreadsheet monetize that?
  9. kipwinger

    2020 Offseason

    I'm confused, is Bernier good or not? Because half of LGW was adamantly opposed to trading him at the deadline because he was so good and now a bunch of other people are saying we need good goaltending.
  10. That's all well and good. And if dudes like Sterling wanna take part in that then more power to them, but they shouldn't sign business agreements saying they WON'T do that kind of s*** then. If you and I both owned franchises in an Italian restaurant, and you signed an agreement saying you won't do anything that makes the franchise look bad, and then the literal prostitute you were cheating on your wife with recorded you talking mad s*** about Italian people, you wouldn't be some kind of victim if I used the agreement we signed to take your business.
  11. You're f*cking delusional. He "lost" his franchise after he gave his wife permission to sell it, given that she was the co-owner. And he did that because 3/4 of the other owners voted to remove him for violating the morality clause he signed; a process he agreed to upon buying the team in the first place. Why did 3/4 agree that he should go? Because it's bad for the NBA (a league that predominantly markets to black people) when one of their largest market teams is owned by a (now very public) racist. You act like a bunch of internet trolls stole his team from him. That didn't happen. Also, his name is DONALD. Next time you wanna make a martyr case out of someone you should probably get their name right, otherwise it looks like you're just bullsh*tting your way through your victim plea. Edit: Here's a good article about how Sterling "lost" his team by violating a number of different contracts he agreed to. Again, I'm a free marketer, if he agreed to a contract he should honor it. If he's desperate to be a racist instead, he should probably not have bought that team and signed those agreements. https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/report-nba-will-argue-donald-sterling-violated-contracts/
  12. As I've already said, the Caps care about their brand. If his "private" conversation had stayed "private" they wouldn't care. But the minute their logo was plastered all over every story containing references to their employees doing coke and making fun of "fat sluts" they cared. Why? Because it makes them look bad. The thing I don't understand is why all you right wingers are giddy whenever faceless, right wing, internet s***bags make a big deal about an all female cast of Ghostbusters or whatever, but act like the sky is falling whenever faceless, left wing, internet s***bags do the same thing to some other unethical s***head? All fair play right?
  13. Again, he didn't lose his job for being an asshat. He lost his job for making his boss/company look bad. A point you've already agreed with. Not a single person "canceled" him out of his job.
  14. Ok, just wanted to make sure. Because for a second it seemed like you were suggesting that when Social Justice Warriors use public scrutiny to enforce their preferred social norms it was "Orwellian" but when you advocate for using public scrutiny to enforce your preferred social norms it was legitimately charitable.
  15. So just to be clear, it's okay (and even quite good and beneficial) to shame people for being fat but it's too much to shame people for being coked up d*ckheads? Not sure that's how public scrutiny works. And you're very clearly not against the idea of using public scrutiny to straighten people out.