Good. Politics isn’t a topics for sports journalists to talk about because it can alienate their audience and negatively impact them personally.

Except it is true. Milwaukee’s tanking for Wiggins did not result in a significant contribution to their current roster. Passing on Embiid because of injury concerns doesn’t mean they’re not smart or well run because, again, not making the right decision 100% of the time isn’t the standard.

It’s actually pretty remarkable now that I look at it. Bourque, in his final season, played over 26 minutes a night, was a first team all-star and came second in Norris voting.

Nah. Kawhi is probably in a legitimate conversation for being one of three best all-around players in the NBA. Bergeron is a very, very good player and a legitimate all-star but he wouldn’t be in that conversation.

Excuse me, but the Leafs’ motto is very clearly “That’ll be 249.99, please”.

I like to think I appreciate David Backes in exactly the way a middle 6 winger should be appreciated. 

Ah, so the realities of the situation don’t actually matter so long as they correspond to your nonsense memories of faded glories. The Habs fan motto at this point.

But they’re no good, right? Because nothing good comes from Toronto so why should anyone object to the Stamkos-McDavid-Tavares Maple Leafs? 

I don’t see how that’s the case. A lot of people’s faulty memories think of Bourque winning that cup after joining the team at the deadline but they’ve got it wrong. Bourque played for that Avs team all year, had a great season and a good playoffs. I don’t see how it’s in any way illegitimate. 

I get it. Lots of people here liked Tyler Bozak when he was on the team. I really don’t think that makes for a compelling story though. Teams have locally popular players. 

I absolutely 100% agree. Nothing good comes from Toronto. It’s why the league should let all of the lousy, no-good hockey players from Toronto play for the local team. 

Again, you keep trying to make this into something it’s not. I never said anything about what the Sixers did being “unacceptable” and I never said anything about these organizations not having some luck involved with where they got where they did. Meanwhile you keep pointing out the mistakes these franchises made…

I appreciate that the NHL is desperate for narratives to sell this cavalcade of mediocrity but I feel like trying to make absolutely everyone the new Ray Bourque makes nobody the new Ray Bourque.

See, man, I have no doubt that you’re coming into this with the best of intentions but I also think you’re lacking in some pretty basic bits of business here.

I don’t have a lot of hopes here given that you used “virtue-signalling” in a sentence but the article makes the point that a college coach can challenge the system from within instead of just getting rich from it. That decision, to not speak out about a corrupt system but instead profit off of it, does have to be…

Save percentage absent context is largely meaningless. It’s why I gave his save percentage as compared to other goalies in the league in his role during his tenure.

1) I didn’t say Rask was roughly average. I said all a team needed to contend in the playoffs was a roughly average goalie on a hot streak. I said Rask was “solid” and “good”

I did say “a little”, not that it was the sole, massively important thing that divides deserving teams and undeserving ones.

Except that’s not true at all. The Bucks and Warriors didn’t just develop those two guys. The Warriors also developed guys like Thompson and Green and Barnes. Likewise the Bucks with Brogdan and various others. That they didn’t develop every one into a superstar doesn’t mean that evidence of their strong player…

I mean, Lowry and Heyward are both very good players. All-Stars even. I think it’s a pretty fair comparison.