The Unknown Poster

Its difficult for people to be even-keeled when discussing politics. Im a pretty devout Harper supporter but I try to see all sides. Harper isnt perfect but the way I look at it, no party is perfect and no party aligns 100% with what I personally want and believe. But this is our system and its important to be engaged so I choose the best party I believe in. I also generally look at the party that will do whats best for the country at large and not just me personally. I'd probably save a few more bucks with the Liberals than the Cons but not to the degree that I would vote for them. Most complaints about Harper and the Cons seem to me to be minor complaints that people who dislike them treat as major issues or things that simply arent true. For example, your position that Canada is stagnating. Okay, thats a strong opinion to hold. What do you mean? Many others would call it stability. The people that want us to fix climate change, fix health care etc...you realise the fix isnt just an idealogical belief, right? If you're okay with being heavily, heavily taxed to fix those things, then feel free to write a big cheque because thats what will happen. When Harper first became leader, the other parties tried to paint the "scary" picture of life under the Cons: military in the streets, death penalty, illegal abortions, private health care etc. None of it happened. They then went with the "Harper is America's lackey" and that didnt really stick either. I think we're now onto "Harper is mean". They'd probably have success going with the Obama plan: say nothing, do nothing...other than "change". He literally won an election by saying nothing other than "change". I think people look at a long-serving party/leader and the idea of change can be appealing even if there is no need for it. In Canada, the media ALWAYS talks about this change when a PM gets into his third mandate. Thats why there was a lot of chatter about Harper potentially stepping down...there was no need for it but he had served his time. Im not as confident as I was the last three elections that the Cons will win this one. Mostly because I would never under-estimate the "change" voters. But I do believe if every single person who votes was informed, and voted carefully, the Cons would win again. The more Trudeau speaks, the less support he gets. He is out of touch with average voters. I think he offended the middle class when he referred to the Cons' tax cut that would provide a small cut for people like me as a "tax cut for the rich" (I aint rich). He seems like an empty suit, no substance. The NDP have dialed back the crazy in recent years and come across as the sober, well-meaning, party of the people opposition. Jack Layton made them seem like a legitimate option. Mulcair is prone to crazy and I'd suspect he'll have an outburst or two before the election. In a perfect world, the NDP and Liberals end up attacking each other to try and gain the same voters and the Cons slip up the middle and win. But you never know. Im probably a bad Conservative because if I was forced to choose anyone other than the Cons, I'd choose the NDP. Not because they are next closest to what I believe in, but because I think they are more transparent and even-keeled. Sure, they will raise taxes, push business out and hurt the country but probably not to a degree that we couldnt rebound in five years. I find the Liberals under Trudeau potentially frightening in that this guy really seems to be a self-absorbed nut. I think the Cons and NDP think "what can we do to make Canada better" and Trudeau thinks "Canada sucks and can only be saved if everyone is me".

I think Morrissey will season with the Moose for awhile. One of the RHD might switch to the LHD side. Plus we have Harrisson, Clitsome (who is likely done anyway). I guess maybe "glut" isnt the right word to use...

Absolutely. He played very well. And made Buff play better when they were paired together. it makes our RHD depth pretty solid too: Enstrom Stuart Chiarot Morrissey Question: I know once Chiarot was re-called last season, they would have to waive him to send him back down so they didnt risk it. Can they assign a player to the Moose before the season without waivers? I would think Chiarot would start with the Moose and be the first call up but if they need waivers, then he's staying up. And that means the Jets have a glut of mid-low D-men.

#NHLJets sign RFA Ben Chiarot to a new two-year contract worth an AAV of $850,000. #bn

Today's hot rumour seems to be Burmi close to signing with the Jets. There's your 3RW. Ladd-Little-Stafford Perrault-Scheif-Wheeler Ehlers-Lowry-Burmi Stemp-Copp-Thorburn/Peluso Not bad...

NDP and Liberals split the left. Cons win another majority. At least let's hope so. Trudeau has been exposed as an empty suit. People will start to think more thoughtfully closer to the election and realize that 1) we're in pretty good shape 2) The fear mongering about Harper has been much ado about nothing. There is only so often the opposition can say "if you elect Harper he will destroy the country" before people realise it's nonsense. Some people like the idea of an NDP government but when push comes to shove, cant bring themselves to actually vote that way. On the other hand, some people always think the grass is greener. Canada is in good shape.

Interesting. The concept seems cool but haven't heard a peep about it. Can't wait for True Detective. Game of Thrones was pretty good this season; I thought it flowed well. The actress who plays Danearys is pretty terrible though. Hot, but not a great actress. I had completely forgotten about Hannibal, but yeah, excited for the new season. Im not sure about Emilia Clarke. She is hot, as you say, but I hope she has broader range than has been required in GoT's since she's going to be a staple of the Terminator Franchise for awhile. Ill give Sense8 a shot. I thought it was from the Orci/Kurtzmen partnership so was avoiding it, but its from the Matrix guys. Interesting...

Somethings got to give. Im in favour of trading Buff but lets say they dont...I cant see them having three RHD at that level making that much money getting the minutes they want. The other option is Buff on the 3LW with Ehlers and Lowry which would be a skilled third line. But Buff prefers D and makes too much for a 3rd line role. In a perfect world you probably trade Buff and get some scoring depth for the wings. And go: Enstrom - Myers Stuart - Trouba Chiarot - Postma With Morrissey there too. I mean sure thats not exactly a scary D but if you trade Buff maybe you get a strong 3rd line winger and second/third pairing D man

Yeah its a depth guy. I dont have a problem with it. He's not playing every game. He's a small priced player that plays well in his role when he dresses. We went too long without a 4th line. If Copp is an improvement at 4C and Thoburn/Peluso take turns dressing, so what. Small price.

Correct me if Im wrong but Stafford is more natural a RW and Perrault a LW. I know Stafford played LW and played well but that was out of necessity. I'd say: Ladd - Little - Stafford Perrault - Scheif - Wheeler Ehlers - Lowry - ??? ??? - Copp - Thorurn Stemp could be an option at either of the ???. It would be nice if Armia can play on the Jets but Im not sure. He has lots of potential though. One of our RHD will have to convert. Enstrom - Myers Buff - Trouba Stuart - Chiarot

Patrick Sharp.

Im a bit surprised at the Peluso signing. I thought they'd let him walk and go without a traditional enforcer. Good for him though.

Finding another Perrault would be nice.

I agree with you. The Piper perspective quickly gave way to a more ensemble cast that I found interesting. I had read they wanted to be "lighter" this season than last and I find that to be a huge mistake. I think they are trying too hard to be funny. I also dont buy the Piper/Alex relationship much. I know Prepon was not available as much last season but they got her as a regular this season so it seems like they are forcing ways to make her a lead. To me, the relationship ran its course. My favourite character is Dogget. I think she's the most interesting and she's funny without being forced in a har har har sort of way. Nikki might be the lone bright story in the three episodes I've seen so far. I hope it gets better. It not, you might see them go back to darker, more serious stories next season. I worked with female youth prisoners for awhile and obviously its not the same as Orange but it was interesting to say the least.

Funny thing about that is, Mark Henry signed a ten year contract after the Olympics that WWE quickly regretted. And storylines like the Mae Young thing were supposedly to try and make him quit. Henry ended up really "getting it" later on though. Im not a big fan but as a character, his work the last few years was really good.

Cyrus was very opinionated. Very smart (I believe he has a masters degree in political science or something like that). But for wrestling journalism there is no one better or more connected than Dave Meltzer of the wrestling observer. A monthly subscription is VERY worth it. I say Vince chose wrong because HBK was gone within five months after Bret left. I loved DX too. The Hart Foundation was amazing in 97 and the feud with DX was the beginning of the turn around for WWE. By the time Bret was leaving, WWE financials had recovered to where they could have kept him but they felt the "attitude" direction and more athletic working style of HBK was the right way to go. But Michaels was hurt at RR 98 and retired after dropping the strap to Austin at WM 98. Bret kept working for years. Bret was also more respected then Shawn. Opinions vary on Shane. I know the wrestlers always considered him "one of the boys" (I've heard guys call him that to me) but the word was he was very tight with "top guys" and always pitching ideas for them but wasnt the type of guy to pitch ideas for lower card guys. On the flip side, Steph supposedly took an interest in everyone. Shane's department in WWE when he was a VP was said to be the best department in the company to work for. He was ahead of the game when it came to monetizing the website. In fact, he was pitching internet-exclusive promotions back in the late 90's but the technology wasnt there...in the same vein as NXT on the Network is today. He wanted to buy UFC before the Fertitta's, wanted to buy Pride, wanted to run WCW. He pushed Vince to go with a more adult style long before he finally did so. He pushed for guys like Jericho, Show and Steiner to be brought in. He would often sit in the crowd at shows to get a feel for crowd reactions (one story I heard is, he was sitting at a RAW show, in the audience, and a guy nearby was yelling, chanting, etc being obnoxious and annoying everyone around him. Shane handed him a $100 bill and said Ill give you this if you shut up). He was called the best boss in the company. Supposedly he left because his dream was to run WWE and he saw the writing on the wall, that Steph was the favoured child in that respect (people say Steph is much more like Vince than Shane) and once she hooked up with Hunter, he knew he'd be on the outside looking in. I assume he will one day return.

Of course I respect your opinion as well, you obviously know what you are talking about. I just don't think you give Vince, Hunter, and the rest of them enough credit for their ability to stay ahead of the curve and manipulate their fans. They are not dummies, I can promise you that. They know what the fans are saying, and they certainly know what the insiders like Cyrus are saying. The fact is, they can't push everybody at once. Fans complain that Wyatt, Ziggler, Neville, Daniel Bryan (pre-injury) and more are being held back. But someone has to lose, and it can't be Kane and Big Show every time. To push Rollins, you have to let him beat guys like Ziggler. When Rollins starts losing, fans will inevitably say he pissed off Vince and is being held back. But the truth is that every wrestler has to participate in the cycle, so that means some will always be up while others are down. I think you touched on this when you mentioned Ambrose. He is being pushed, for sure! But yet, all he does is lose. Isn't that kind of interesting? maybe its merch sales lol give the guy the belt or #1 contender long enough, and they'll sell enough and be viewed highly enough that even without the belt or title shots they still sell and get over - think randy orton, whens the last time he was relevant? even vs rollins with the authority friction that was swept under the carpet like it never happened, yet he still gets one of the loudest pops everytime he comes out no matter how stupid that set up to the rko is Merch sales is the number one reason Cena was never turned. They nearly turned him during his run with the Rock to the degree he had new gear and entrance song prepared and a new catch phrase (fear my name, I think it was). Vince always got cold feet because of the merch sales. There is also a belief that the segment of the audience that heels on Cena would either stop or begin cheering him if he turned. ie. the heeling is more fans rebelling then an actual legitimate opinion. Randy Orton seems to be used now in a similar role to Cena. He's kept hot enough to remain a "top guy" but it used to set up guys on their way up than to be the guy at the top anymore. Orton came along at a time when they thought if a guy stays a top guy til he's 40, then if you push a guy when he's 20 you can milk him for 20 years. Didnt really work that way. Orton got overshadowed by Batista at a time when Orton was "the chosen one" but was booked all wrong.

I agree to a point. But how the fans react is way less important to WWE than what they want to have happen. And its usually Vince that changes direction if he feels forced to by the fans. Examples being Daniel Bryan last year (who they tried every booking trick on earth to hurt his reactions) and Rollins winning the title instead of Roman this year. Fan reaction isnt a key metric for them. House Show attendance is. PPV buy rates were. TV ratings to a degree.

Of course I respect your opinion as well, you obviously know what you are talking about. I just don't think you give Vince, Hunter, and the rest of them enough credit for their ability to stay ahead of the curve and manipulate their fans. They are not dummies, I can promise you that. They know what the fans are saying, and they certainly know what the insiders like Cyrus are saying. The fact is, they can't push everybody at once. Fans complain that Wyatt, Ziggler, Neville, Daniel Bryan (pre-injury) and more are being held back. But someone has to lose, and it can't be Kane and Big Show every time. To push Rollins, you have to let him beat guys like Ziggler. When Rollins starts losing, fans will inevitably say he pissed off Vince and is being held back. But the truth is that every wrestler has to participate in the cycle, so that means some will always be up while others are down. I think you touched on this when you mentioned Ambrose. He is being pushed, for sure! But yet, all he does is lose. Isn't that kind of interesting? I dont read Cyrus to be honest. Does he still have a newspaper gig? And I've only ever met him once in person. He hates my former partner so we never did business together but he trained a few of the guys I am close to. They can't push everyone at once, ofcourse. It's just how they do it. I think Hunter is very, very smart. I dont think very highly of Stephanie. I think she's a very, very good performer. But I think she has been very sheltered in her wrestling development and her "executive" development. The booker when WWE experienced it's best levels of popularity was a guy named Chris Kreski. He was an assistant under Vince Russo and became head writer after Russo left for WCW. Not many people know of him because "writers" wasnt as big a buzz word back then. He was replaced by Stephanie and so launched one of the worst creative periods in WWE history and probably the greatest decline in TV ratings in their history. I think Steph is good in her current role as Brand Officer because she looks good, she sounds good, she knows all the corporate buzz words. But she's very much inside the "bubble". Hunter is very interesting. He had heat with guys years ago because he was considered a smart guy and got himself invited to the weekly production meetings where angles and pushes would be discussed and decided upon. Austin spoke out about this quite strongly at the time and didnt want Hunter in the meetings. I think Hunter is smart about wrestling when its angles he's not involved in. NXT is very good. And its much needed. When Jim Ross was head of talent relations, they had relationships with multiple developmental territories and other promotions (like ECW) and found a lot of talent. When Johnny Ace had that role, their "depth" plummeted. Hunter understands the need for strong developmental and he understands that work is more important than look. But he also routinely cut the balls off of guys he worked with and still does when they work with him. He's the type of guy that would book Bryan to be a top guy against everyone else but look terrible if he worked him. Vince is almost completely out of touch now. And some could argue for a very long time. His one great accomplishment was the Hogan era. But he didnt discover Hogan. Hogan was already a huge star. Vince just decided to build his national expansion around Hogan at a time when Verne Gagne wasnt willing to do so. Vince also didnt come up with the idea of syndicated TV or national expansion. He just did it better than everyone else for the most part, he gambled a lot and he worked from a position of strength as his territory included New York. Bill Watts was expanding. Jim Crocket was expanding. Vince just did it faster and better and picked the right guy in Hogan. But by the time WWE was on the verge of bankruptcy, there wasnt much Vince was doing to right the ship. He saddled Steve Austin with a lousy gimmick. He saddled The Rock with a lousy gimmick. He brought in the NWA in an effort to be "old school" (which must have driven him insane). But as much ego as Vince has, out of him, Steph and Hunter, he's the easiest to change his mind, admit when he's wrong. He changed Austin. He changed Rock. He chose HBK over Bret which, in retrospect was likely the wrong decision. He would never remove Steph from power which was the wrong decision. Letting Shane quit was seen by some as a terrible decision. He fired Jim Ross several times so that tells you it was the wrong decision. But he doesnt hold a grudge. But anyway...here's the thing about winning and losing. A guy like Neville debuts and loses repeatedly. Now it doesnt matter. Wade Barrett means nothing now. They lose too much and/or for no reason. When Steve Austin walked out on WWE a few years back it was after publicly criticising creative (which was headed by Steph) and in response he was booked to lose to Brock on RAW with no storyline or build up. There's politics rearing its ugly head and setting up a loss/win that meant nothing. Ambrose's push is good. It only bothers me because I know it's not meant to mean anything. He's just the most over guy that Rollins can beat until they get Roman ready or Brock comes back.

I can't make you believe me. But if someone reads this and had to choose they'd be wiser to go with me. Not because I'm smarter. Just because its my business. It's what I do. No disrespect intended. I love talking wrestling with people. I respect your opinion certainly. And yes when I talk about what wwe does and their decision making, a lot of it is what I read. Not from "insiders" but from the most inside journalist in the game. But a lot of it is what I see from watching. I can tell what they are doing by how they do it because I'm a Booker for so many years and there's a general way things a done for certain reactions.

Cant blame Frolik. Make the money you can while you can. Cant begrudge him that. I'd suspect if they were closer there would be wiggle room on both sides. Doesnt sound like they are close enough and someone will "overpay" Frolik so he is probably gone. Between Stafford and Frolik, I'd pick Frolik because he's more versatile. But losing Frolik makes signing Stafford a larger priority because we need that offensive depth. I just hope we dont give Stafford too much cash or too much term. Still think Buff is the key because trading him could re-stock the shelves in several key areas.

This is incorrect. I am not an "angry fan". And no, that is also not the "new kayfabe". But nice try. I know you're not an angry fan but I see the same thing everywhere. And yes, it is the new kayfabe. It is blatantly obvious that they listen to the fans talking about who is getting pushed, held back, etc. and they play off that. It is incredibly obvious. Hunter even talks about it in the Stone Cold podcast. They are working the fans and the fans don't get it yet. You're vastly over-stating it. In fact, you're exactly the type of fan Hunter was talking about because you believe him when he (and Vince and Steph) say they listen to the fans. The plan was not to push Roman and swerve the fans with Rollins. The decision wasnt even made until a few days before WM, in fact. Same thing happened last year when the plan was Orton vs Batista. or do you think they always planned to bring Batista back and have the fans turn on him? Working the vocal fans is always a bad idea. Generally Vince doesnt use TV live event fan reactions to make long term decisions. MSG was the crowd he would use for that. They have far more detailed data then boo'ing and cheering. The only reason Roman's push has been pulled back is because they dont want him to be totally turned on. WWE has very talented people working there and when they're working towards the right goal, they can do wonders. Ambrose has been used to help negate the negative reaction to Roman. It's psychology. It's silly in a way...they should just push Ambrose (which they are to a degree). But Roman is their "Cena Replacement Plan". Dont ever think differently.

This is not remotely what I was referring to. Things like "wrestler's court", which is pretty stupid in concept and even more stupid in execution. Zigglers big crime was giving an interview and saying something along the lines of "if I went into a dark alley with Randy Orton, I'd be the one walking out". There is lots of goofiness that WWE does. It happens at all levels. On the indie scene, it's more about hiring crappy workers because they sell tickets or are friends with the promoter. I've pushed guys I've absolutely loathed because I wanted to put on the best show I could. Same with not pushing guys I liked a lot.

This is incorrect. I am not an "angry fan". And no, that is also not the "new kayfabe". But nice try.

Why? Is it because, what I feel, Season 3 of Orange is awful?? It took me three episodes of season 1 to really get into it and then I was hooked. Season 2 was can't miss...binged on it. 3...it's been a struggle to keep watching and it's only been three episodes.