kipwinger

No. If the image of raw, unadulterated, masculinity makes you squeamish, look away.

This is the type of thinking that makes me think people on the internet just like to argue. What?!? Stop playing the victim. I wasn't talking about you. I said "this type of thinking".

I concede. You got me.

You said "this type of thinking" while quoting me as an example. If I quoted you and said "this type of thinking is goofy" you'd have every reason to think I was talking about you. It's not that hard to figure out what you were suggesting. And you're not really clever at all. So I'm not sure why you're trying to dance around it now. You think "my type of thinking" ruins awards that I (in fact) have no say in administering. Which is absurd. But I doubt that's the point. Apparently something about me really bakes your clams. And you really wanted to show me what's what. And you did. In sense that you put a bunch of words in my mouth, made me responsible for something I have no part of, and then danced around about it when I confronted you about it. I don't choose NHL awards. And I didn't suggest that the team with the greatest improvement from one year to the next should get awards. So try again. Careful. That's exactly the type of thinking that's wrong with awards. But not your thinking. Someone else. But the kind that you're an example of. Except not.

Again, it's not slander if it's meant to be funny. Which it was. As clearly stated by the author. If I said, "Frankgrimes eats crickets", you couldn't sue me for slander even if you don't, in fact, eat crickets. Which is why so few people get sued for slander. Slander typically happens when somebody (journalists or people under oath) report something as fact which is actually untrue. TSN didn't report "Lupul banged Cuthbert". They just posted a tweet from a guy who said that. Which is irresponsible of them. But not illegal.

I'm not sure where this idea of "most improved" is coming from. I mentioned a number of coaches that I think did a good job this year. They've all improved their teams. I'm not sure who improved the their team the most (probably Laviolette, if I had to guess), but I certainly wasn't saying the that the coach (or GM) with the best record this year (compared to last year) should win it. That would be most improved. Something I've never advocated for. Personally, I'd look at all the coaches whose teams dramatically improved over the last year, and then I'd try to figure out why. Was it because their powerplay is way better (Detroit), or because they're more healthy (Detroit), or because they got a new coach (Nashville, Washington), or they had a whole year with a different coach (Winnipeg), or a couple new assistants, etc? And then whoever's improvement was most directly attributable to the coach, would get the award. And that's how I'd vote, if I had a vote, for coach of the year. But I don't, have a vote just to be clear. So if you think my thinking is ruining the sanctity of the NHL awards process, rest assured that it isn't.

Awwwww s***. You've bitten off more than you can chew on this one. While your logic is solid, you argument is vulnerable in one key way. What if a bunch of people on LGW think that Brendan Smith is WAY better than he is? I mean, what if they thought that instead of a third pair defenseman with upside, he was a "dynamic two way defenseman"? What if they thought that instead of a mediocre defenseman who has underwhelmed both offensively, and defensively, they thought of him as a future cornerstone of our blueline and in some cases have even compared him favorably to Keith Yandle? Then, it absolutely WOULD be like scratching Kronwall for Marchenko wouldn't it? And that's how your argument is wrong. Because Brendan Smith, despite his past and/or current performance, is a frickin' defensively stalwart.

Why the hell do you live there? Just out of curiosity?

I wasn't appealing to authority. I was pointing out the fact that you called me (and my thinking) out and oddly not Pierre Lebrun, the person who wrote the article in the OP, mentioned all the same guys I did, and actually gets to vote for those awards. Why not say "his type of thinking is ruining the awards"? Since he actually gets a vote. Instead, it's my thinking. Seems like you've got an axe to grind, or some hostility or something. I promise I don't get to vote for these awards, and so you can be assured that my thinking isn't ruining anything. Otherwise, I've said what I'm going to say. A coach (or GM) of the year award should go to the best coach (or GM) over the last year. And since I don't believe (my opinion) that any of these guys did absolutely nothing between this last year and this, I'm going to heavily rely on improvement as an indicator, when offering up my (clearly stated) personal preferences.

I live in D.C., and we got dumped on today (by southern standards). About six inches of snow in a few hours. I was the only person in my neighborhood outside enjoying the weather. It was a blast. I miss Michigan for a ton of reasons, but the snow is the biggest. We get this kind of snowfall a couple of times a year and it's always a treat for a handful of Northerners.

I'd probably erase that last post before that troll earns you a nice little suspension. I agree with your comments, but you'll be the one that suffers for it. Just trying to do you a solid.

Who said it should be the "sole factor" for picking a winner? Certainly I didn't. You've been on fire with your straw man arguments lately. I did say that the guys who stick out "to me" are the guys who's teams have dramatically improved since last year. I'm not sure why that's such a big stretch. Should the coach or GM of the year be someone whose team got worse? And even if it was the "sole factor", I'm hardly the only person that feels that way. Lots who people, who know a lot about the sport, vote that way all by themselves. So your "this type of thinking is what's wrong with the awards" comment is a bit of an exaggeration.

It's a annual award. The Islanders are significantly better than they were a year ago. Why should they not be in consideration? I'd agree if we were talking about giving Garth Snow a lifetime achievement award. We aren't.

Why do you think that?

We do it. A lot. But I don't think, when people point it out, that they're ragging on the Wings. They're just being matter of fact about it. We're a smallish team. How the hell else are guys like Nyquist, Tatar, Dats, Z, Helm, Weiss, etc. supposed to play defense? Body the other team up and punish them physically?

Neither of them deserve it. They're both good, and consistently good. But being third in your division, despite being largely healthy, and with no noticeably change in personnel, system, or coaching, isn't exactly extraordinary. We're a good team. We were supposed to be a good team. To me, giving it to Babs and Holland would be like giving it to Bowman and Quenneville, Lombardi and Suter, Rutherford and Johnston, or Sather and Vigneault. All of them are either meeting, or slightly underperforming expectations. I don't know what goes into the selection process for these awards, so I don't know who will win. But some good coaches and GMs that have stuck out, to me, are Laviollete (obviously), Maurice, Hartley (ugh), Capuano, Trotz, Chevaldayoff, Snow, and Tallon.

If you want some afternoon entertainment, read the butt hurt posts on this GDT right up until the Stepan penalty. *Spoiler Alert* They are almost identical to the Rangers complaining. We're no different than anybody else. And if we'd lost that game instead of won it, you can be absolutely sure that the refs would be to blame. Not the 50,000 times we turned the puck over in the defensive zone, or the fact that we looked like we were skating in mud.

Purported to be comedies. Lol. I liked you post just for that.

That's the million dollar question. Things he's said in the past lead you to believe he's talking about keeping him with the big club, but you can't really be sure based on the way this quote reads.

Look whose hat trick earned them a trip to Burger King!!!! Who's a good boy?

I'm not sure losing a real good prospect and 1st round pick is "mortgaging their future". Especially when you consider they just got a premier defenseman who's only 28 years old. Healthy organizations can lose a good prospect and pick once in a while, without noticeably suffering in the long term. Look at the ages of some of their key players: Brassard, 27 Miller, 21 Hagelin, 26 Kreider, 23 Hayes, 22 Zuccarello, 27 McDonagh, 25 Stepan, 24 Staal, 28 Yandle, 28 Needless to say, I think they're in good shape.

I wouldn't dare make assumptions about their fidelity. However, I am curious about what they are claiming in the suit. Slander? Defamation of character? As if "being a Maple Leaf" wasn't enough to defame or injure their respective characters. Personally, I'd rather be unjustly thought and adulterer, and rightfully be thought a member of, (or worse) captain of, the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Can I use stats?

It's like that movie "Pontypool". It spreads through language. Seriously, watch Pontypool.

For sure. In a second part of that interview, Holland made clear that it was Babs' decision on whether to keep Marchenko up and play him, or send him back to GR (as he did with Pulkkinen). Not that it guarantees anything, but when you start putting comments together you can maybe get a glimpse of what the the organization is thinking as far as the defensive pairings. They've said in the past that ideally they'd like all three pairings to be lefty-righty. Then Holland says he doesn't want Marchenko sitting, but that where he plays is Babs' decision. And then Babs' says "we're going to make sure he's playing". That may be an indication that he wants Marchenko AND Zidlicky in the lineup. Meaning that two of the six lefties will need to sit. Youtubing Motor City Machine Guns right now lol. As far as who's scratched, I'd imagine injuries will make a lot of those decisions for Babs. We're relatively healthy now, but I can't imagine that down the stretch the wear and tear of the season won't begin to show more.