Make your life better & happier
I think "Lion" or "The Lion" would be a great nickname for Scottie Barnes.
Here are my predictions for the 2023-2024 NBA standings, ranked by western and eastern conferences.
Here is a summary of the general strengths and weaknesses of Raptors management over the last 10 years, using the benefit of hindsight to note possible major successes and mistakes.
Because the Raptors management, scouts, analysts, and coaches have done such an amazing job selecting and developing players, the Raptors should still have a good team this year and going forward, even after losing VanVleet in free agency. Overall, the Raptors have had an otherworldly level of decision making, player development, and culture creation in the last 10 years. The Raptors have nailed and appropriately developed more lower draft picks they have made than possibly every other team, not to mention undrafted players. That, along with many other reasons, is why they have the second most wins of any team in the NBA over the last 10 years, while enjoying an incredible run from 2013-2023. The Warriors are the team with the most wins, and it took the Raptors beating them in the Final to get the Raptors their championship.
As I see it, the Raptors and Ujiri have had amazing foresight and good decision making in some general areas from 2013-2023. These areas which have traditionally been great strengths include:
The fact that the Raptors have been such a good organization with exceptional player development and decision making overall does not mean that big mistakes have not been made, or that the team could not be situated much better for the present and future without those key mistakes. Firstly, I wonder if the Raptors have done a poor job seeing when they should trade away good players they like for future young players and picks. Their inability to make trades for the future is highlighted by what I see as two of the biggest asset management mistakes that the team has made from 2013-2023, with Lowry and VanVleet, which I write about in detail below. Secondly, I wonder if the Raptors have not capitalized on their excellent development of players and depth by trading away multiple players for a great player or future star player. They did accomplish this at least once, with solid results, with the trade of Valanciunas, Wright, and Miles for Gasol. However, they could have more often used their depth to take a gamble by trading 2, 3, or 4 players away to get 1 or 2 great or potentially great players for today or the future.
I might be wrong, but I wonder if these two general weaknesses, along with a couple of the major mistakes resulting from them, have significantly weakened the current and future potential of the Raptors team from what it could have been. The Raptors organization has had many more strengths and good decisions as opposed to weaknesses, poor decisions, and indecisions in the era from 2013-2023. However, the Raptors could have capitalized much better on their strengths of growing, developing, and drafting players if they had traded their good players that they liked in Lowry and VanVleet at the proper time, for some good young players and draft picks. They also could have used their strengths of developing, drafting, and depth to trade away multiple good players they like for a great player or future star player. Having patience is to be lauded, but indecision or inaction at the wrong times can also lead to poor results as well. Sometimes only hindsight allows one to reveal and recognize true weaknesses and mistakes which one can improve on to get better in the future.
As I see it, the Raptors and Ujiri have had some major mistakes, poor decision making, and indecision or inaction in some general areas from 2013-2023. These areas, which may have been weaknesses and could possibly be improved in the future, include:
The Raptors had a great 2019-2020 season. Masai decided that the team would "Run it back" before the season began. Lowry and VanVleet started together, which appeared to be a good decision by Nick Nurse, as VanVleet was a superior player to Powell and it allowed a great amount of ball handling and passing in the lineup, along with Siakam and Gasol. The team was exceptional again, even though they had lost Kawhi.
After this season, the Raptors should have started to move on a bit to the younger group and trade Lowry in the offseason. VanVleet was clearly ready to be the starting point guard, and Lowry and VanVleet were not the best pairing for another full season anyway. Lowry had a bounce back year points wise since Kawhi was gone, and was coming off being a 6-time straight All-Star at about age 33, so the Raptors could have gotten some good players and picks for him with a full year left on his contract. By trading Lowry's big contract for young players and picks, the Raptors could have signed and kept a center in either Ibaka or Gasol. In that way, they could have moved on from the older Lowry and Gasol, but still kept a center with experience and a good team together, but be younger and with some draft assets or young players built up by trading their star player in Lowry.
The lineup, not even including any great young player the Raptors might have gotten for Lowry, could have looked something like VanVleet, Anunoby, Siakam, Boucher, Ibaka. Or VanVleet, Powell, Anunoby, Siakam, Ibaka. Both Powell and Boucher had amazing seasons in 2019-2020 and were pushing to be starters. Boucher actually led the team in Win Shares according to Basketball Reference in the upcoming 2020-2021 season, an amazing feat, playing 24 minutes a game off the bench. I proposed an unlikely trade where the Raptors might have gotten the 2nd and 3rd picks in the draft for Lowry, and also suggested they take LaMelo Ball and Tyrese Haliburton with the picks, as an example.
What I have heard many people say and report is that the Raptors could not get much for Lowry at the 2020-2021 deadline, so they decided against trading him. I agree. I'm suggesting the mistake was not that Lowry was not traded at the deadline, but that the Raptors should have had the foresight to trade him in the previous offseason, a year before he was actually traded. Star players should be traded in the offseason, and older players should be traded before their value is diminished. Often this will be when the player has one year remaining on their contract, as was the case with Lowry.
Raptors 2020 and future strategy and lineup
The Raptors had a solid bounce-back 2021-2022 season, finishing strong to get into 5th spot in the East, after finishing 12th the previous year. Barnes won rookie of the year and VanVleet was an All-Star for the first time. Siakam, who missed the start of the season with shoulder surgery, made an All-NBA team.
Before the start of the 2021-2022 year, Doug Smith wrote what seemed to be a very credible and informed piece in the Toronto Star after the Kyle Lowry trade. It laid out what appeared to be a vision for the future of the team, saying "They'd like a team of young, athletic players who are interchangeable for the most part, in a game growing more positionless by the season, and it’s a process to put that in place. Not a quick process, either, despite the sense that free agency began and ended in the first 36 hours."
After this season, the Raptors should have continued with their vision and traded VanVleet in the offseason, especially after he did not sign an extension immediately. VanVleet was coming off being an All-Star for the first time, increasing his value a fair amount. So again, like Lowry two years before, if the Raptors had the foresight to trade VanVleet in that offseason, they could have picked out and gotten some good young players or picks that they were interested in for him.
I do want to mention that there was another option in this current 2023 offseason which was available and could have allowed the Raptors to get value for one of their star players without losing them for nothing. If the Raptors did want to end up paying and keeping VanVleet instead of Siakam, maybe because he was such a great shooter and leader, they probably still could have. Instead, they could have proactively chosen to trade Siakam this offseason, possibly before free agency, freeing up money to sign VanVleet. In trading Siakam they likely could have gotten a better trade and assets and traded away the weaker shooter, so there were also positives for choosing VanVleet over Siakam.
Instead though, they chose not to trade Siakam in order to keep VanVleet instead. Then they ended up letting VanVleet walk this year, instead of choosing to trade him a year ago in the offseason, when they could have capitalized on his All-Star year and had the foresight to see they might not be able to keep him after he did not sign an extension right away in the 2022 offseason.
Here are my predictions for the 2022-2023 NBA standings, ranked by western and eastern conferences.
Here are my ideas and strategy for the potential lineup, depth chart, and final roster spots for the Toronto Raptors going into the 2022 season, now that they are heading into training camp.
This takes some points from the main ideas I previously noted in "Raptors 2022 offseason lineup changes", which I wrote shortly after the end of the season. They did follow a few of my ideas from that article already, including resigning Boucher, drafting a versatile and athletic center, and signing Champagnie to an NBA deal for now at least. And there have been some rumblings about Achiuwa having an increased role or even possibly starting as I had also crazily suggested.
We'll now see if Nurse and company makes any of the other suggestions this year in either this article or my previous one, including moving Trent to the bench, playing Koloko a lot, and playing Flynn more this year than last year. Of course Flynn will be in a battle with Banton and it could go either way. I could also see a trade happening like Birch, Flynn, and a second round pick for Cam Reddish. A smaller trade like that would open up a roster spot to keep both Jackson and Champagnie on the roster, and Dowtin as a 3rd point guard behind Banton.
I also like the signings of Porter, Hernangomez, and Jackson, and that they didn't commit to two years like they have previously with players of their ilk. Porter is worth the two years of course. I find it particularly interesting that they have added a ton of versatile and athletic height since trading Lowry at the start of the previous season. Achiuwa, Barnes, Banton, and Young came the previous season. And now they kept Young and Boucher this offseason and potentially add Koloko, Porter, Hernangomez, and Jackson to make 6 tall and versatile signings to their main roster this offseason. That would leave VanVleet, Flynn, and Trent as the only remaining guys under 6'7" and they now have much more height overall than just a couple of seasons ago.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, what is the fairest trade for all?
Here is a potential trade I like for the Raptors to get a player in the draft lottery this year. The Kings, Trail Blazers, Pelicans, and Wizards all might be teams they could potentially trade with to get Daniels, or someone else if they prefer.
Here are some other players I like for the Raptors in this year's draft. All of these are players I have picked out that could be good players worth picking, with a focus on defensive potential as much as offense.
Here is how I see the Raptors lineup if they could somehow add both Dyson Daniels and Dalen Terry. Beyond their top 10 players, they could keep Thaddeus Young possibly, or look to other free agents and undrafted players.
These ideas do not take into account future FA or trade upgrades.
Here are my thoughts and some potential trade options to be involved in a trade for Simmons currently.
* Note - Maybe Dragic and Boucher could be starters, with all our young guys playing together on the bench, to also boost Dragic's trade value and because Boucher is better than Birch.
** Note - Maybe Siakam or Barnes could actually play center, with Birch starting the year there as a solid player, but really being our 3rd string center later in the year when Siakam returns.
Thoughts
I think we want Thybulle instead of Maxey because he is a great defensive player with length like OG but at the 2-3 spots, similar to all the other players we like who are great defenders to start with. Contrary to the latest Raptors Digest video on September 2nd which says not to trade VanVleet, I think our deal almost certainly has to involve Fred. Why would the 76ers accept a deal with Gary Trent as the top player, unless they get Boucher as well as 4 first round picks and all young players? And that's a deal I don't think we want, just like we don't want to trade Siakam or Anunoby. Plus, I'm not sure we can include Trent in a deal before the season since we just signed him to a deal this offseason.
But our deal can now include Dragic, unlike my thoughts on trading VanVleet and Boucher earlier, before the NBA draft took place. And we can think of it like we traded Lowry but also got an extra guy we love in Achiuwa. We might be competing with a deal for CJ McCollum, who's a pretty good player and better offensively, on paper, and in the media than VanVleet, and he's also in the West where the 76ers don't compete against the Blazers. The fact that they could probably get McCollum is another reason why Gary Trent and Boucher likely won't cut it to make a deal.
In the big picture though, with our deal the 76ers get a lot of shooting which Morey likes with all of VanVleet, Boucher, and Dragic, while losing their two horrible shooters in Simmons and Thybulle. So it could be addition by subtraction and offer a lot of shooting while getting rid of their bad shooting. Plus Boucher is a great fit for them as a stretch four, as he is still extremely undervalued and a starting caliber player in this league in my opinion just like Norm Powell is. Boucher has been very high on PER both of the last two years, along with guys like Powell and Christian Wood before his deal with the Rockets. The 76ers can move Harris to small forward and have starters VanVleet, Curry, Harris, Boucher, Embiid and a bench of Dragic, Maxey, Green, Niang, Drummond. Green might start at SG obviously though.
We're in a decent position though, because the 76ers likely want to win now so they don't really want young players or picks like they might get in deals with San Antonio, Sacramento, Golden State, or other places. Plus if they want defense and winners they could like our guys, or particularly our main guy in VanVleet, better than guys like McCollum, Buddy Hield, or D'Angelo Russell. VanVleet to start and Dragic to play off the bench offers them a lot of playoff-tested defense, winning, experience, and passing to replace Simmons in order to win now. Plus they still get a good young player in VanVleet at point guard to make the trade look at least somewhat normal. Personally, I think VanVleet is a perfect point guard to fit with Embiid as well because he is a great shooter and leader, and because Embiid will get the ball more so you don't need a pass first point guard like Simmons, Chris Paul, or Kyle Lowry.
The above trade would be the most we might offer, but we might get it done for just 3 of those assets, or without Thybulle for as little as two of those assets. But I still think VanVleet almost certainly has to be the centerpiece to get a deal done likely at the very least, and I don't think we want to do a deal if it includes Anunoby or Siakam. To make the salaries match in order to get Dragic, I think the 76ers have about an $8 million trade exception from the Horford deal, which might even expire as soon as September 7th, or possibly later in the year.
The lineups proposed by me are based on two possible deals, one where we keep Dragic and don't get Thybulle. If we could keep Boucher and just give up VanVleet, Dragic, and a 1st round pick that would be the best deal we could hope for I think, but the least likely for the 76ers to accept probably, so I don't have a lineup based on keeping Boucher. The actual deal made from the list in my trade would depend on the 76ers and Raptors opinions on the values of Boucher, Thybulle, and the value of 1st round picks compared to those players.
Unlike many people who think Simmons isn't a good fit now without a starting point guard like VanVleet or Suggs, I'm actually higher on getting Simmons now than I was before the draft and getting Barnes. We can go all in on the strategy of defense, length, speed, and passing while developing all these guys shooting skills. Plus we still have some shooting in Siakam, OG, Flynn, Trent, Mykhailiuk, Watanabe, Dekker, plus Barnes and Achiuwa who do show potential to improve quickly. We could even possibly keep Dragic for our starting point guard for this year, with Flynn as a possible replacement in the future too.
But imagine how many rebounds we can get and how great the defense could be if we do leave Simmons and Barnes as big guards eventually, and decided that Siakam could play center if that's the case, instead of the skinny Boucher. Boucher could start at power forward if we are able to keep him instead of Dragic, and we would have 5 guys who are about 6'9" or taller who are pretty good players who can guard multiple positions. A lineup of Simmons, Barnes, Anunoby, Boucher, and Siakam would have a lot of potential, or even a lineup with Achiuwa at center instead of Boucher at power forward if Achiuwa's shooting improves enough in a year or two. If it's not enough shooting and we lose Boucher we can still have Trent, Flynn, or Dragic in there with a lineup like Simmons, Trent, Anunoby, Barnes, and Siakam.
Hey Ben and Ryker. Do you have any thoughts or feel like discussing this trade and potential roster lineup on an episode?
Here is a link to a super long take with some more thoughts about this idea, which neither of you will probably read at all 😉 Have a good one and great work on the new changes to your setup and the show this year guys.
Raptors Digest - 2021 Raptors Trade, Draft, and Lineup
I heard that Daryl Morey likes 3 point shooting. VanVleet, Ross, and Watson are all pretty great at that, while Simmons is horrible and Thybulle isn't known for shooting now either. They can also use wings who have some height to possibly play SF in Ross and Watson. Even though Watson is mostly a throw in, his 3 point shooting in the G league a couple years ago and last year in the NBA have been pretty great so he might be an interesting addition for Philly. While the Magic have a lot of good young players, they need to get going at some point with at least one real player instead of having only young guys with potential. Since they also have the 8th pick, maybe they could look at Simmons as a good young player to take a chance on for that 5th pick since Kuminga is another project who could take a while or end up a bust and isn't in that top 4 tier. They could move Isaac to SF and Simmons to PF to work well as a Draymond Green point forward with their young guards and centers in Hampton, Anthony, Fultz, Harris, Carter, and Bamba. Maybe Gary Harris to the Raptors, Tyrese Maxey to the Magic, Chris Boucher to one of the Magic or 76ers, or different draft picks could be other possibilities involved if needed to get this done by sending more to some team, but hopefully not Boucher if we don't have to of course.
For us, pretty much every single guy in that lineup is pretty good on defense, works hard, and has the potential to get better. That's how you win championships and develop players the new Raptors way under Masai. That's why I'm not super high on the Siakam for Wiseman, Wiggins, and 7th pick. Wiseman and Wiggins aren't known for their IQ, motor, hard work, and passing which we want our top players to have in spades. And I like Kuminga or Barnes with the 5th pick much, much better than who might be at the 7th pick. We can develop all of these good young players to get even better, while still having a solid team now hopefully. We're hoping that Suggs is the next Chris Paul or Jrue Holiday but a better scorer, and Kuminga is the next Pascal Siakam or even Kevin Durant, or somewhere in between.
While hoping we will win a championship with Siakam and VanVleet as our best two players might be overvaluing them, there is real potential with Suggs and Kuminga. Remember, we have never had one top pick like this under Masai Ujiri, let alone two great potential young talents to develop. This is a big potential opportunity, and to have both of those guys as bench players to start off could make a good team now. Though, the future championship team might hinge around Suggs, Kuminga, Anunoby as the main core, or whoever steps up and gets better even if it's Siakam, Trent, Thybulle, Boucher, or someone else. The potential is there, and keep in mind the idea might be to possibly trade other pieces in Lowry, Oladipo, Boucher, Trent, or even Siakam, etc. at some point to get one more potential star somehow if Oladipo or Siakam isn't that guy, to go with whoever our two or three stars are at that point. In the meantime, we have a solid team of young players to start this rebuild officially, with Lowry transitioning to the bench or being traded depending on Suggs development.
Actually, I personally like keeping Siakam with these guys and having the core of Suggs, Kuminga, Anunoby, and Siakam, along with a center which could even be Boucher in my mind possibly. A lot of length in that lineup and Kuminga could potentially have and develop the offensive skills and quickness to play SG, or Anunoby could even play SG if not. It would be interesting also because that lineup would feature 4 players with African heritage, which I think Masai would be proud of and find interesting. I am surprised with how little emphasis the media has noticed or talked about the fact that Masai has gotten many of these guys with African heritage who have been undervalued. Trading for Ibaka. Drafting Siakam and Anunoby. Picking up Boucher. It's another reason why I think he could be super high on Kuminga, as someone with even more offensive potential than any of those guys.
Ben, I was glad to see you come around on Jalen Suggs after you went and read about him after we got the 4th pick. I have a feeling the Raptors might absolutely love this guy and possibly have him 2nd on their board, ahead of both Green and Mobley. They might be ecstatic that they could get him and see it as their chance to build for the future around a pass first point guard who can also score, play great defense, and lead a winning team. I love Suggs so much I might take him first overall even though I know that sounds crazy, and I agree with you that he is a perfect Raptors pick to build around for the future. He might never be known as a top 20 player just like Lowry or Siakam, and always be underrated like every Raptor because a lot of his value comes with his defense. But his amazing defense, hard work, IQ, passing ability, team basketball, pass first approach, and winning attitude make him a potential great long term leader for this team. And he still has the talent to potentially be known as a top 10 player too, though it's a crapshoot for that with any player you pick obviously. I think he could be a real playoff starter and winner as opposed to just a regular season player, league leading scorer type, or slam dunk contest winner. Remember, we won with Lowry (Suggs) who is a great all around player who works hard and plays defense, Leonard (Anunoby) who is a great defender and also turned into a great scorer, and Siakam (Kuminga) who is athletic but also has some good offensive skills, not with Vince Carter (Jalen Green) who is a super talented offensive player who scores on his own a lot, and isn't known for defense, working hard, and wanting to win at all costs. Green should be amazing though, but he might not be there for us anyway.
Ryker, here are 3 reasons you might like Suggs and this roster more than you realize, even over Mobley or Green. If you don't like waiting to get good, I think Suggs is currently known as easily the most win now guy in the draft, and guys like him aren't often at the top of the draft. While going with a rookie in the playoffs is always risky, he has much more potential than Green, Mobley, Kuminga, or Barnes, let alone other players. Because of his solid defense and IQ, he might be able to hang in there in his first year. Remember, even our lower picks in Siakam, Anunoby, and Powell all started in the regular season on a top Raptors team in their first year, with Powell starting in the playoffs some. Why? DEFENSE, MOTOR, and HARD WORK. But Suggs also has top pick offensive potential. Personally, at this top pick I think we should go for the best long term potential player and win now shouldn't be important, so if Green or Kuminga was actually better long term I would take that chance. But I think Suggs could also be that long term all around player as well for the reasons listed above, even though I do like that Suggs is also more NBA ready too which is just a nice plus for us.
Second, you've talked about how VanVleet isn't a pass first guy, and playing VanVleet and Lowry together isn't great. Suggs is actually a perfect complement to Lowry, Flynn or even VanVleet in my mind, while also being the potential pass first playmaker and long term solution to take over from Lowry in a league dominated by great passing and shooting point guards on many of the top teams. When or if Suggs is playing together with Lowry or Flynn for now, their defense could be great together at guard, especially paired with Anunoby and Siakam at forward. But we can now have more length and strength with Suggs playing SG potentially, and still go with potential two PG lineups that have worked for us in the past with Lowry/Vazquez, VanVleet/Wright, and VanVleet/Lowry. It doesn't matter that Suggs is more of the passer. Lowry or Flynn plays PG on defense where they are good, with Suggs having better length and strength to guard SG and SF. And Suggs plays PG on offense with Flynn or even Lowry because of his playmaking ability and Kyle's shooting ability. Then Suggs is also the long term solution, so if he turns out amazing you could then trade Kyle and have Trent, Thybulle or someone else at SG, or even play Flynn and Suggs together if Flynn gets really good too and you like more playmaking.
Third, this trade has the potential to get guys back at their regular positions and have good length and rebounding, except for Boucher out of position at center. We got 3-and-D guys at SF, shooters and potential scorers at SG, scorers at PF, passers at PG, and athletic rim protectors and rebounders who can also switch onto smaller players at C. Nurse will play around a lot as always, and also because some of these guys like Kuminga, Suggs, Trent, Thybulle, and even Boucher have more versatility than previous players like VanVleet, Gasol, Valsooinawallsauce, and even Lowry. But there is potential to have more guys at their natural positions or not playing way out of position, especially if you do get a bigger center that is more talented than Boucher, or eventually trade Siakam and have Boucher and/or later Kuminga or Anunoby at PF.
As far as Boucher starting at center, I realize it seems odd and everyone worries most about getting a center or two. I don't as much. We have so many other good young players with this roster and can find centers even though they didn't do great at it last year going with the big brutes in Baynes and Len. So many things could happen before the season and Siakam is out to start off, but Boucher starting at center is my big crazy prediction and wish, even though it's not the perfect solution. In previous years I had two crazy predictions that came true. After we traded for Kawhi, everyone assumed Valanciunas would start and Ibaka would go to the bench, but right away I thought Ibaka should start along with Green because the overall defense could be amazing. It was double addition by subtraction by getting rid of DeRozan and moving Valanciunas to the bench. Getting the two worst defenders out of the starting lineup made a big difference, along with trading CJ Miles and JV later. We had enough offense even though it wasn't the best in the league, but with Ibaka and Green in the starting lineup, and later with the Gasol trade, the defense was ridiculously amazing. Then the following year everyone assumed Powell would start at SG and take over from Green, as VanVleet was a clear backup PG. But I thought VanVleet should start because he was clearly the better player, and Nurse also made that change which people thought was really odd.
It's the same thing with Boucher. If we don't get someone obviously better, which could be tough with how great Boucher has been per minute, I think we should take his weaknesses and just go with him at center alongside Siakam once Siakam is back. Boucher is still a great 3 point shooter, floor spacer, rim protector, shot blocker, very mobile big who can switch, and great rebounder. Yes he's skinny and will give up some easy baskets, backdowns, and rebounds that look bad. But Gasol, Ibaka, and Valanciunas all had their weaknesses too. Boucher is at least good at both ends of the floor unlike Gasol on offense except his passing, and Valanciunas on defense except his rebounding. I'm not sure we should leave Boucher on the bench just to start some solid rebounder big guy who can't shoot. With such good defense and length at the other spots, it might be better to have Boucher's good shooting, mobility, and offensive skills in the starting lineup.
Golden State Warriors
Charlotte Hornets
Toronto Raptors
Chicago Bulls
Toronto Raptors
Bigs - Pick 2 or 3
Guards - Pick 1
Lineup Season
Lineup Playoffs
Two-Way
Lineup
Alternate
The B.I.G. Death Lineup - Business Instead Of Game
The Globetrotter Lineup - Pass For The Hell Of It
The Tall Ball Lineup : The Giant Lineup - Big Guys Got Skills Too
The Great Ones - Dinosaurs Go Down In History
Here is a potential idea and plan for how to finish the 2019-2020 NBA season and playoffs.
May 17th, 2020
What is the Oilers roster and who should play on lines together? I play armchair coach and try to make the best Oiler lines and depth chart from their current players.
After watching the majority of the Oilers games this season, I couldn't help but evaluate the players and start thinking of line combinations. So I thought I'd have a shot at what I think the Oilers and McLellan could do with their lines and roster. These lines are based on getting the most out of their current players, both for right now and looking forward to the future.
OK, first of all, I do at least know Slepyshev is a left winger. And I realize moving Yakupov to play center is absolutely insane. Maybe one way to put it is that I'm not smart enough to know just how insane it is. But with that said, I'm not a purely casual watcher, or completely uninformed. Even though I'm no scout and I have never played any high level hockey, I love watching what is actually going on in the game. I've watched fairly closely at times as I've enjoyed the games this season. And I've done a bit of reading about these players in coming up with this set of lines too.
But if you think one of these ideas is stupid, you are most likely right. I'm really just another guy with an opinion. I don't know the Oilers in and out like some people who have been avid fans for the last 5 years. And I certainly don't know as much as coaches, scouts, or ex-NHLers who actually evaluate players better than I ever could. Please write your own article about all the reasons Yakupov can't play center for instance, and contact me with the link. I'd be interested in reading it. Or even better, try to write down your own full set of lines and roster. It would be neat to see how other people think the lines and depth chart of the current Oilers should be drawn up and why.
And what is he doing? As far as I can tell, he is trying out different line combinations and making players know that there can and will be changes. Just because they play with someone doesn't mean they are in a linemate marriage which will never be broken up. Basically, you need to be able to play with different people. And he is going to try to find what combinations work best. However, he is doing that while also providing some consistency at the same time. For instance, Yakupov and Pouliot have played together a lot, even after McDavid got injured. Nugent-Hopkins and Hall have been together for quite a while.
But McLellan sure showed that he would make changes if needed. Boom. McDavid and Hall split up after the first regular season game. That was a surprise. Again, I'm not super informed, but I think he really believed in McDavid and Hall being a duo. While Nugent-Hopkins and Eberle would be another duo. He gave them the pre-season and one game together, but decisively tried something else when he felt it wasn't working well.
I won't go into a history of what all McLellan has done with line combinations this season. But I really like so many of the different changes and little adjustments he is making. Like the move to separate Hall and McDavid, putting Draisatl with Hall and Nugent-Hopkins, and Eberle coming back on the third line. The injuries aren't great. But they have allowed the team to evaluate players lower down in the depth chart early on in this Chiarelli-McLellan rebuild, or really "build" I would say. The possible lines I've layed out take into account some of the changes McLellan has already made, as well as players Chiarelli has brought into the team.
OK, now the fun part. I've been thinking about different lineups since the first game. My overall idea for the team is to make the top 2 lines only have players on it that have good skill, but also really good hockey sense and passing ability. I think Hall, McDavid, Eberle, Nugent-Hopkins, and Draisatl all fit into that category.
In doing this, I think you are going with the Oilers strength. To continue with the move to put Draisatl, a great passer and quick thinker, on a wing on the top 2 lines instead of having him center the third line. To move Yakupov to the third line, because he can't keep up with the passing of those other players. To put another player who can think nearly as quickly as those other players with them. To not put a big checking winger as a third piece to the top line duos, but keep those big wingers for the third and fourth lines.
So, I'd try to pack those top 2 lines with great passers, maybe even more so than great skilled players. I also understand the idea of putting some of these scoring duos with a fast, capable, forechecking big man. My thinking is that the Hall/Nugent-Hopkins and McDavid/Draisatl duos are big enough and strong enough on the puck in the offensive zone that you don't have to put them with a big guy like Pouliot, Korpikoski, or Slepyshev. They are also capable defensively, with Nugent-Hopkins, as well as McDavid and Draisatl, a former center.
So I wonder if you can pack those top 2 lines with another good passer and scorer, and not have to worry about their forechecking ability or defensive ability. Someone who is more likely to make the smart pass to them, than shoot the puck every time. Or to find the open ice for a pass from them, since they are all good passers too. Someone like Purcell.
This leaves the lower 2 lines to be focused more on defense. One thing about going with this strategy could be that you let your players know this fact. It gives the 3rd and 4th lines a role to live up to. They know that while they are all good players that can score, that they want to focus on defense just as much or more than offense.
So these bottom 2 lines eventually get packed with 4 big wingers who are good forecheckers. It just so happens the Oilers already have quite a few of these. Pouliot and Slepyshev, who also have speed and some scoring ability. Korpikoski, who Chiarelli traded for. Gazdic and Klinkhammer. These lines are also packed with players who have speed if possible. So they can hang with top skaters on other teams. Yakupov's speed in the middle could help with defense, and it moves a smaller player to the middle of the ice. The bigger wingers can get the puck wrung around the boards out, and hopefully be the first into the corners more often in the offensive zone. Letestu is a veteran center put with Yakupov so he can help him with the defensive side of being a center. Letestu can take the draws for now.
These lower lines should still have the ability to score though. And without having to "balance" the lines on purpose by moving great players like Eberle or Draisatl to the third line. Offense is the best defense. Having good offensive players like Yakupov and Pouliot on that third line gives you a chance to score still. All of Letestu, Yakupov, and Pouliot can put the puck in the net, without having to worry about making a lot of great passes like the gifted awareness and passing plays of the players on the top 2 lines. Dump or get the puck in the offensive end, and try to get the puck to Yakupov playing center, to beat a guy and score.
Oh, and if Yakupov playing center is just horrible, just switch him and Letestu. I still like this set of lines. If that big change doesn't work out, I'd still go with these same lines, but with Letestu centering the third line.
So I made the top 2 lines be "smart" players with great hockey sense only, and the bottom 2 lines be focused more on defense, but still with enough offense to score. However, I also ended up making these lines balanced in certain ways. There is at least one older player on each of the lines. Purcell on line 1, Eberle on line 2, Pouliot and Letestu on line 3, and Korpikoski on line 4. There is one very fast goal scorer on each line. Hall, McDavid, Yakupov, and Slepyshev. There is a great passer on each of the top 2 lines, with Nugent-Hopkins and Draisaitl. Of course the other 4 players on those lines are also good passers, being "smart" players who can make quick decisions. While not great passers, Letestu and Pouliot both play an overall game, and can set up Yakupov on the third line too.
There is depth at center, so any injuries can be handled easier. Draisatl and Letestu can be moved over to center. But if this works, I would strongly consider always leaving Yakupov at center, and rarely ever the wing except for special teams. I only changed the positions of Yakupov, Letestu, and Slepyshev, two of which are quite low on the depth chart right now. I guess Draisatl too who had been moved to right-wing first. But with these changes all players would now play on their correct sides. With right-handed players on RW and left-handed players on LW. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the defense. Reinhart is forced to play the off side with the decision to put Nurse and Reinhart together.
Putting so much scoring on the top two lines means that an injury to one player doesn't make the line poor offensively. You can move any big winger like Pouliot, Slepyshev, or Korpikoski up with any 2 of the top 6 players. The worst injury would be Hall, with Slepyshev or Pouliot probably moving up to play with Nugent-Hopkins and Purcell. But that is still a pretty good line, and you might play the Yakupov line a bit more if Hall goes down. Remember I'm looking towards the future too. The hope is that Yakupov and Slepyshev are only going to get better.
These line ideas have been made looking towards the future. Is Fayne better to have playing right now than Davidson? Probably. Is Hendricks a better guy to have on a 4th line than Slepyshev, and leave Slepyshev in the AHL? Yep. But I've made up this possible line list really thinking about who I would keep on the roster going forward. I was thinking about how I might pair players together even in late 2017 as much as right now. Who I think I would really want to play together a year or more from now. But this roster is also for right now. Basically these are lines that I would also go with right now.
A luxury I have in writing an article like this is not dealing with all of the headaches of a real roster. Putting a lineup together every night is what is really tough. Especially with all of the injuries the Oilers have been dealt with this year. Mixing and matching has been done very well by McLellan. I'm looking at a bigger picture really. This set of lines and roster is made in a perfect world where there are no injuries, and no big contracts for players who you might want to leave off the roster. It's more of a depth chart of the players I think should be a part of the team. But also with an assessment of who I think would work best together based on just the games I've seen this year, and what has been tried so far by McLellan.
It's possible I missed someone. But for the most part, if I haven't included someone, I am not that high on them being in the roster going forward. Again, I understand that some players I have left off should really be in the lineup now, over someone like Davidson for instance. I thought about listing these players in a "Trade" or "Gone" section, but figured that would just be mean. But who I've left off of this roster says as much about my assessment of the players as who I have in the lineup. Also of note is the guys I marked as "Veteran". Those are players I would keep on the roster for now more for their experience. But I expect that younger and more talented players will replace them going forward.
I was going to go into more detail, writing about each forward line and defensive pair. Explaining more of why I might put them together. For instance, why I might move Yakupov to center, put McDavid with Draisatl, or Nurse and Reinhart together. However this is quite long already, and it explains the main idea of the lines. I might write a second article some time about the ideas behind each line, including more of a scouting report for each player so far this season.
I mentioned earlier that I'm not an expert, but just a guy with an opinion after watching many of the Oilers games so far this season. Unfortunately, I'm also not a true Oilers fan. I haven't been watching or keeping up with this team for the last few years. So I don't want to punch someone every time Yakupov gives away the puck in the neutral zone trying to stick handle around 3 people. And my Facebook status every other week for the last few years hasn't been "Hey do you think the Oilers could trade Nugent-Hopkins away for X?". I haven't had my hopes and dreams crushed over the last decade, seeing the Oilers at the bottom of the standings again. I actually like watching all these young players. And it's been so much fun watching some NHL hockey games again, and having a team to cheer for.
But flat-out I am jumping on the bandwagon to be an Oilers fan again. I haven't watched too much hockey the last seven years or so, other than World Juniors and Olympics. I played hockey in the 80s and 90s when I was younger. I was a huge Oilers fan the whole time, growing up in the prairies. And of course Gretzky was my favorite player, along with Fleury later.
I just really wanted to watch McDavid and my old favorite team after not watching NHL hockey too much. You can kind of think of me as an informed fan, not a real true Oilers fan. Kind of like McLellan and Chiarelli deciding to go to Edmonton because they know the Oilers have a good core of young players. I've decided to check out the Oilers and join the McDavid and Oilers bandwagon. Even though they are last in the division, it's sure been fun watching them so far, even with McDavid out. Time has flown by watching them and so far I have stayed on and enjoyed the ride on the bandwagon.
I watched the movie The Double last week. After watching it, I went to read about it and came across a question from someone on Stack Exchange Movies.
So I started out writing my thoughts about whether or not James was real, as well as an idea I had about what was going on in the movie. I ended up re-watching it and writing an explanation for what I think was happening in the movie. I definitely recommend the movie so go check it out sometime if you haven't. The movie is kind of about self-improvement, as I think the main character is struggling and trying to improve his life. He runs into some serious personal problems trying to make his life better. However, I really just wrote this because I wanted to. Enjoy.
Who is James in “The Double (2013)”?
I saw the movie The Double this morning, a very strange movie. I didn't understand the exact plot of the movie. I've read the plot in IMDB and Wikipedia too, but I don't get it. Can somebody explain this movie in simple English? My main question is "Who is James and does he really exist?"
I think it's possible that James isn't a real physical person separate from the original character Simon, but that much of what James does in the film does actually happen. This is because Simon and James are two personalities of one main character. Sometimes he's actually doing things as Simon, and sometimes he actually does things as James. And sometimes we're also getting a second physical representation of him but it is only his thoughts as Simon, or sometimes his thoughts as James.
On top of that, I'll add the idea that much of the movie is not literally real but simply Simon's thoughts about things that have happened to him. And sometimes even things that haven't even happened to him. Sometimes parts of scenes are simply internal dialogue in his head about what he thinks, what he thinks other people think, and what his other personality thinks. I'll explain a bit more of what I think is really going on and give examples.
I know nothing for sure. As people have said it's probably ambiguous on purpose and left for people to decide for themselves. I just watched the movie but haven't read the book, so I don't know as much as someone who has read the book, and I haven't over-analyzed the movie by watching too many times. I watched the first half or so over again to write this. This is just one idea I had that is maybe a little different than just the two options I've read. That either James is a real person or that James is not real at all and none of it really happens because it's all just in his head.
So here is a possible interpretation. It's about a guy that develops two personalities. James is Simon. Simon is becoming James. Sometimes in the movie he's Simon, and sometimes he's James. There aren't really two of him at all. He's not actually seeing a doppelganger who looks just like him or who he thinks is similar but more more successful than him. But we are really just getting a look into Simon's thoughts and a portrayal of his life as he struggles between two personalities. The reason we see two people is because Simon separates into two people in his own mind, and we get his thoughts or viewpoint from the other personality.
When Simon decides to become the more confident and cocky James, he never quite feels like he's himself. He always feels like he is pushing his old self and personality aside. So we continue to see Simon and get his real thoughts about what he is doing as this new personality, James. He feels like he is outside of himself watching himself when there are scenes with both of them. He is acting as James often, but we hear his thoughts and see his feelings about how he is acting from his real and original personality, Simon. And sometimes he's doing things as Simon, and James is in his head telling him what to do or what James thinks. I'll explain when exactly and why Simon develops this new personality James.
So in my interpretation, I'm suggesting that many scenes are just a picture or portrayal of how Simon sees these different events that have happened to him, things he has done, and the situation he finds himself in. Different things do happen that we can pick from here and there, but many scenes are used just to tell the story overall and see things that Simon has done or things that have happened to him. I'm basically saying that much of the movie doesn't really happen as we see it, so it's not literally real. If you can make that leap, then it could become a bit more clear about what might have been real and what might just be Simon's thoughts and internal dialogue about things that have happened.
And that is exactly what many scenes are. Not only are scenes from Simon's perspective, but they are simply his thoughts about what happened or how he remembers them. So sometimes people don't really say what they say, or do exactly what they do, or look exactly like they look in the film. It's only an interpretation of how Simon sees them, or how he felt like in the situation. And some scenes didn't even happen at all but are simply made up possibilities in his head, and his own thoughts about things. What other characters are saying in a scene may sometimes just be a chance to tell us "what he thinks they think". Or even just what he thinks about something that happened even though it's coming from someone else's mouth. I'll give examples.
Picking what little bits might have happened exactly and what is simply Simon's thoughts can almost become a bit of a game. It might not be important knowing exactly what scenes, parts of scenes, or dialogue are actually real and what is Simon's thoughts about it. But just know that the movie may not at all be like a fly on the wall camera viewing an actual scene. That's why some things look so odd, like the whole atmosphere and the way people look and talk. We may only be getting what Simon saw when he experienced the event, not the actual scene. You can decide for yourself what might have actually happened, and what might be just Simon's thoughts. But getting it all correct is almost impossible. I'll give a few thoughts throughout this overview on what parts of the film might be Simon's thoughts versus things that actually happened, but by no means am I saying I'm correct for sure.
I'll sprinkle in examples in this article, but here are a few ideas in one place to get your mind going. Just in case you watch the movie again and think this interpretation might be correct, or at least possible.
It starts in the first scene where he is kicked off the bus. Is it possible that a guy did ask him to move, but that the subway was actually full of people, including the girl? Watch how Simon looks around throughout the scene. All he really sees is the jerk that asked him to move, but doesn't he look as if he he feels embarrased and looks around and acts like other people are on the subway? Later on the guy that stops him from entering at work, which he sees throughout the movie is not the same person, no? Another example that we are just seeing what he sees or remembers about events, not exactly what happened.
Does his boss really talk like a walking metaphor of work life? Maybe it's just in his head that way? Could scenes like the one with his boss capture his thoughts about a number of different events at work? Is everyone at work really old except him, or is he just imagining growing old working there? Do you really think 2 guys handle only suicides from just one neighbourhood? That whole scene, including him talking to the girl seem very odd. Could it be only his thoughts and not real? Maybe the scenes in the cafe are not real, but only his thoughts. Maybe Simon's scenes with the girl are only what he thinks she thinks of him.
Don't the scenes at the ball seem particularly odd? The way the girl at the entrance talks, the music playing, how he bends down to look through a hole, and everyone is old but him and the girl. Could much of this just be grandiose thoughts made up in Simon's head to explain some other reason why he wasn't allowed into an employee event? Maybe the guy with the moustache is not real at all, and only Simon's thoughts. Maybe his boss in later scenes is more like his brain talking to the Simon personality. Why are there only one set of footsteps when both Simon and James are in a scene? Is it possible that Simon or James aren't both there, but that one of them are his thoughts about what he is doing?
Simon hates his life. He is sick of his monotonous job. He is sick of his overbearing Mom. He is sick of his idiotic boss. He lets people push him around. One day a guy actually tells him to move out of the seat he is sitting in on the subway and he moves, but he resents it. He has good ideas to improve efficiency at work, but his boss won't listen to him. Most people don't even recognize him at work even though he has worked there for 7 years. He pays whatever the people taking care of his Mom tell him to pay even though they are robbing him and he is spending much of his money to take care of his Mom.
But Simon likes a girl at work who he has never really talked to. In fact, she doesn't even know who he is, even though he has been watching her at work. He becomes even more infatuated with her because he lives across the street from her. He looks into the window of her apartment after work and gets to see even more about her life than he would know at work. He tries to keep himself from watching her by watching TV, but he can't help himself.
Simon starts to see things or remember things a little oddly and quite negatively. He sees all people who carry out negative actions towards him as being the same guy, even though it's not. Through his Mom's friend which may or may not be a real person, he finds out that even his Mom thinks he's weird or different, and he takes this to heart. He remembers certain events that embarrassed him or made him feel stupid and replays them in his head. These different events which he sees in a very negative way start adding up to an even more miserable life for him.
But he likes that girl. The next scenes near the beginning where he talks to the girl at length may not be real at all if you ask me. This includes the first suicide scene, the scene where he talks to the police and the girl, and the scene after that in the cafe talking to her. These scenes are simply Simon's thoughts. He is imagining what would happen if he were to kill himself and what the girl might think of him at this point.
The scene when he talks to the girl on the street after the suicide portrays one negative side where she simply doesn't know him at all. The scene after that when they talk in the cafe portrays another option where she thought he was stalking her. This scene also includes foreshadowing of his thoughts to move into her apartment building. The cafe scene also shows a more positive possibility and how he might hope she would be around him if things were to go well with her if he ever talked to her. She says "Thanks for this.", smiles at him, and acts like they are on a regular date. Much of what she says in the film to "Simon" here and in later scenes is simply Simon's thoughts about what he either thinks or wishes that she thinks of the real Simon personality.
But up to this point he never really talks to the girl in real life at work, even though he has gone to her to make copies for him a couple times. She probably doesn't know who he is. But she might see him every once in awhile. He hides and watches her sometimes when she leaves work. He looks at her on the subway ride home. In his mind, time almost stops when he sees her, and all he sees is her. He sees her get off the subway when she goes to work. He isn't quite sure if she ever catches or sees him watching her or if she knows who he is. Of course, he watches her in the evenings in her apartment too, which is why he becomes a little obsessed with her.
Simon makes excuses in his head for why he hasn't tried to talk to the girl. One day maybe someone was moving some stuff onto the subway in front of him when he saw her get off so he couldn't. He exaggerates in his mind how many boxes they moved onto the subway, as this is his thoughts about what happened, not exactly as it happened. Then it's that he gets stuck too long checking into work. If it's not one thing then it's another, like the elevator door closing too quickly before he could get in with her. But even when he gets up the courage to go see her at work where she makes copies, he doesn't say anything to her except "Copy".
Simon decides to change and becomes what we see as James after he has a particularly horrible and embarrassing night. Remember he already hates his life and is beginning to see some things oddly. However, he is looking forward to going to the ball, even though it is required that all employees go. He wants to see the girl there, and maybe make his first move to talk to her or get to know her. But they don't let him in for some reason. He sees her inside but he gets escorted out of the ball and it's one of the worst nights of his life.
At the end of this scene he says "This is not me. This is not me." It's after this event that he goes a little more crazy and decides he's not going to live this crappy life anymore. That this is not who he really is, "A frumpy looking guy named Simon", as the waitress in his own head with his own thoughts, had put it. It's from here on out that he works to change his personality and become James. But he always feels like he's kind of watching James from his old self and his old personality. He acts more confidently and kind of like a jerk, but he knows he's not really himself. Later in the film he has a struggle between being this new personality James, or being himself, Simon.
Many scenes after this we are seeing Simon's view of himself after becoming this new man. But there is not really 2 of him in the scenes since he is now really James. And sometimes he is really Simon, but getting thoughts from James. But we are seeing his struggle as he does the things in life to get ahead as the cool James, even though he's really not happy being this way. And Simon from this point is just his own thoughts about what he thinks about how he is now acting. And often people he talks to as Simon are probably also his own thoughts about what he thinks about James, and what he thinks other people would think about James.
So he decides to make his life better. The scene after he gets escorted out of the ball has him seeing a guy go into the girl's building and then he goes to his telescope and sees the guy looks just like him. But scenes in the movie are not real, just a portrayal of what happened. In real life what happens is he rents another apartment above the girl's. This gets him even closer to the girl, and gives him a new place physically to separate himself and help him become this new more confident personality. He had already envisioned himself possibly committing suicide from this apartment even though it hadn't yet happened.
So the next morning he is trying to become James, and push his old personality Simon to the side. But in real life it's all just one guy. He hasn't quite made the transformation yet when the elevator door closes again, but opens back up this time, with the girl inside. But she does smile flirtingly at him, and he does get the nerve to really talk to her for the first time saying "I bought you a present, but I decided it wasn't appropriate."
But then his employee card, which metaphorically represents his Simon personality, is cut up and James is introduced at work. Again, it didn't literally happen exactly like that. It's a portrayal of his change from being Simon to being James. Or just creating that second personality. And he didn't literally faint in the office or talk to the guy with the moustache where he said "Don't you notice something about the new employee? Does he remind you of anyone?". That's his own thoughts in his mind, as are a lot of the future scenes with Simon in them. I don't want to get into what all exactly is real and not real. But the guy with the moustache could not be real at all and represent his own thoughts.
Remember how his life sucked and nobody knew who he was when he was Simon? Well that all changes. Now he's cool and confident. Now he acts in ways which get him noticed in every situation in his life he used to hate and get no respect. He tells the waitress at the cafe she better darned well get what he wants. He schmoozes with the boss and the boss not only remembers him but thinks he's the best employee ever. He hits on the boss's daughter. He gets a promotion at his job from the work his old personality Simon did. He kicks the Simon personality to the side, even though he still has the thoughts of Simon in his head. He feels like he is watching himself from the outside, and often doesn't like what he is doing as James.
Most importantly he starts to talk to and hit on the girl he likes. He has this new personality which the girl likes. Even though he's turning into James and acting in these new ways he doesn't always like it. He's still really Simon on the inside and he still has the Simon personality. He wants to be himself as Simon especially around the girl but whenever he does things don't go well. Simon isn't comfortable enough to talk with the girl so she leaves him at a restaurant. So James has to take over, going so far as to doing things that are mean and cruel to the girl. Simon doesn't like what James is doing, but being James is the only way he can get ahead in life and get the things he wished for when he was only Simon and wanted to kill himself.
The rest of the movie is a struggle between his two personalities. I won't go through the rest of the movie to explain things that are happening, but I'll add one last thought. Maybe he is struggling to decide which personality he is going to kill. He has quite the decision. If he kills this new fake and arrogant James personality which he doesn't like, he might be back where he was with a miserable life as Simon. Or he can kill the Simon personality, which might mean he has decided to give up and end his own life as he had previously thought about near the beginning of the film.
The best case would be that he can stop being like Pinocchio, controlled using strings by James. To be himself as Simon and be a real person. But killing just James will not be easy, because he's now a part of him. He's going a little crazy and thinks these two personalities are two completely different people. James is trying to take over and it seems like he needs James' help to get the good things he wants from life, like a promotion at work and the girl. Is he even able to kill James without killing Simon too? What will he choose to do?
I guess one reason that I was really interested in The Double was that I feel like it involved a guy who was struggling to improve his life. He was overwhelmed and in a depression, thinking about ending his life. He may have started trying to improve his personality and what he was doing in order to make his life better. In doing so, he may have created a separate personality which he felt wasn't himself, and started doing things which he normally wouldn't do. It's an interesting balance we need to achieve in life, trying to be our true selves while at the same time trying to improve our personality and our actions to get the things in life which make us happier or more successful. What will you choose to do?
November 29th, 2014
I thought the NBA slam dunk competition was excellent again this year, as long as you turned off the volume. The announcers were easily the worst part of it for me, but other than them I enjoyed it. There was a lot of great dunks even in the early rounds. And the best part was that it finished really strong which sometimes doesn't happen. The two finalists had great dunks ready to go in the final round and pretty much nailed each of them. Was a lot of fun to watch. I thought Jeremy Evans jumping over the picture was great. And Terrence Ross's final two dunks were both great, including the one off the backboard with the Vince Carter jersey. Excellent night of slam dunking again this year if you ask me.
Quick story from Bill Russell, the great NBA player who won 11 championships. He was asked by a reporter about what it would be like to play in the NBA with the current generation of players. The game has changed a lot and there are a lot of great players with great abilities. The reporter asked "If you were playing today how many points a game would you get now?" Russell replied "Probably about 10 points per game". The reporter said "Wow, just 10 points a game, because the game has changed so much and there are so many talented players now?" Russell said "Well I am 75 years old now".
Curtis Granderson has hit more than 40 homers in both of the last 2 years and is hitting 8th for the Yankees today in the playoffs. He finished 2nd this year in the MLB in homers and only 6 guys had more than 40 homers this year. Doesn’t seem right to have him so low in the lineup but that’s the luxury that the Yankees always seem to have with their huge payroll. You can bet he would hit cleanup or there abouts every night on pretty much any other team.
My award for best iTunes Festival concert that I watched goes to Mumford & Sons. I have watched them 3 times so far. Sorry Jack White, you were brilliantly awesome and I especially liked the all female band but you have to settle for runner up. P!nk gets 3rd for her honest performance where she talked after every song and didn’t care if she messed up lyrics. Loved how she acknowledges everyone in her band and all of her fans. And I wouldn’t be surprised if some women would buy an Apple TV just to watch the Usher concert.
| 🌎 Map | 🧑 About | |
| ⭐️ Subscribe | 👨🎓 Scholar | |
| 🩷 Member | 👨💼 Officer | |
| 👤 Follow | 🕵️♂️ Guide | |
| 🔍 Find | 🧝♂️ Human |